
» ^ • •* 

if - 

1 * H 

• 

- • ri : 


- Uir 

:.' ! ■ 

•t. •* -* * 



LT 4 

->• 

:k - f: 

4 

* V 


vr-C-S ,<C •*-- a-L- 


• *r.f& J H '«» 


^ *• 

-4 ’ i 

* *»••». a 


^ lii r; 

> I«*J. $r. : w: **’ 

$ *VA^ , •■ 

-i 

fi 

1 5 jm 

,« i. . 

a - .-«• 

>te- 

? •4‘j 
.5 *' 

•; 

It *i\ 


£■ :«r Af nr 
- -hi - • »»i in. 

*5” ’ 

i -r. 

> • ^ 1 
}.* r» 
*• 

' 

i» »* T» 

r rt' • v 

• *» : » • 

a - . «»* - 4# 

•: 

JT’ • 

±r 

<*» 5 

. IS • 

Jli 

h»?i 

r. i -» 

: ir ." 
ri? ft 
- It 

3J7 :i 

!* X 

u 

« *f£> 

?i} r 
• -5 - 

r. 

I 

& ♦ i 

( 

• a. * 

v\-'i >' :•• 
• ••• .; 

i»j 

• 

<*• « • irr 4*i - *.t ■ 


' * 

? re- a* j 

7 f ll 
* * 

X J* * 

v 

4il * 4 

h\-: 


L .V 

k; *• 

1 ' i: 

,* -ll 4J 

r'i 

• q- 

% • 
*» • 

tr -/ • 

<h«. 

- t»« ; • 

* -!? «* • y 

n T); 

!~ • . 

t c. r. 
hr h 

-t *' .rj i »i, 

■t • * 

tn >•.*.] 

«** 
r »J 

j: • ;«»■« 
T 

':s 

• -f r 

* 

*'7 

a ’.£ > . 

..4 fA; 

^ t tc .r. » • V_ J 
nki «r i! i 

f ah i 

}• tv- 

it- * 

it 3 At. 

i • /-•« 13 • / ( 

f*x ’L-‘ nr TCi’i 

srt 
* » t 

—- • 

• « 

•• »5 

- • •» t* 

r * c 

k • K •» 

4|.| 















































































THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE 


OF 

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION 

Stated and defended: 


WITH 

A CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL EXAMINATION OF THE 
CONTROVERSY, ANCIENT AND MODERN. 


ALSO 

practical Illustrations anir Choices 


BY GEORGE PECK, D. D. 

M 


TENTH EDITION, REVISED. 


Pork: 

PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PORTER, 

200 MULBERRY-STREET. 



« 


BT 7&g 




** Entered according to Act of Congress, m the year 1842, by 
G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, in the Clerk’s Office of the District 
Court of the Southern District of New-York.” 

GIFT 

BERTRAM SMITH 

,f t *f 35 






££QU Mk/7 


PREFACE. 


It is a correct opinion, and one generally admitted, that 
no one should obtrude a new book upon the public without 
good reason. He must have something important tp com¬ 
municate—must be able to shed new light upon some 
theme or doctrine which holds an intimate relation to the 
good of society—or he must, at least, attempt to restore 
some neglected or rejected truth to its proper influence, 
or to defend it against the assaults of error. 

The reason which has induced the author at this time to 
execute the laborious task of writing a book on Christian 
Perfection is, that in his opinion it is wanted . The sub¬ 
ject has been discussed in various forms, and a variety of 
theories have within a few years been presented. Efforts 
have not been wanting to modify the true Scriptural and 
Wesleyan theory, in such a manner as materially to mar 
its symmetry, and to injure its practical influence. A 
spurious origin has also been given, and a relationship to 
exploded heresies erroneously attributed to the doctrine. 
Add to this, that too many who acknowledge the truth of 
the doctrine are little concerned for its practical influence 
.—are too indifferent in relation to its experimental and 
practical bearings. These facts have deeply impressed 
the mind of the writer with a conviction that a thorough 
historical, exegetical, argumentative, and practical investi¬ 
gation of the subject is loudly called for by present emer¬ 
gencies. 

The writer professes no new light—broaches no new 
theory; his views, as far as he understands the subject, 
are strictly Wesleyan. These views he has endeavoured 
to free from false glosses, to vindicate against objections, 
and to enforce by reasons which address themselves to the 
highest principles and susceptibilities of our nature. 

The doctrinal and practical lectures were delivered in 
several churches in the city of New-York during the 



4 


PREFACE. 


winter of 1840-41. The historical, and some of the con¬ 
troversial matter, has been added. The form of lectures 
has been retained, as being, upon the whole, the most con¬ 
venient. 

The historical portion of the work may, by some, be 
supposed to occupy an undue proportion of it. But when 
it is considered that the subject has seldom, if ever, been 
discussed historically, and that a want of light upon the 
different forms and phases of the controversy has materi¬ 
ally embarrassed the subject, and been the cause of no little 
misjudgment in relation to it, the work will not be consi¬ 
dered faulty in this respect. 

The course adopted has necessarily led to numerous re¬ 
ferences to the writings both of the friends and enemies 
to the doctrine of Christian perfection. The writer first 
hesitated between the plan of stating objections and argu¬ 
ments without giving the authorities, and the one finally 
adopted, which is to quote authorities for almost every 
thing which bears at all upon the controversy. He finally 
fell upon the latter course, as best calculated to guard him 
against the charge of presenting objections to our system, 
and views on the other side, which are entirely apocryphal, 
and merely got up for effect. For the living authors quoted, 
in the main, the writer has a high and sincere respect, and 
is not conscious of having done them injustice. 

It would have been a much more pleasant task, could 
he have done it consistently with a sense of duty, to have 
waived the consideration of the polemics of the question. 
Controversy, though sometimes necessary, owing to the 
manner in which it is prosecuted is not always happy in 
its results. The writer has endeavoured to avoid the 
bitterness of feeling which is but too common in religious 
controversies, and to deal kindly with those from whom 
he is compelled to differ. 

The whole is submitted to the inquisitive and candid 
reader with ardent prayers that it may assist him in the 
great business of his salvation. 

GEORGE PECK. 


New.York, November 10 , 1842 . 


CONTENTS 


LECTURE I. Page 

We must leave Elementary Principles. 7 

LECTURE II. 

The Nature of Perfection. 24 

LECTURE III. 

Theories on the Doctrine of Perfection—Wesleyan Theory_ 41 

LECTURE IV. 

Theories—variously modified. 66 

LECTURE V-IX. 

Controversies on the Subject of Christian Perfection. 88-174 

LECTURE X-XIV. 

Objections to the Doctrine of Christian Perfection considered 194-302 
LECTURE XV. 

Period when Believers may be entirely sanctified—Errors con¬ 
cerning. 321 

LECTURE XVI. 

Regeneration and Entire Sanctification not Identical.341 

LECTURE XVII. 

Direct Scripture Proofs. 365 

LECTURE XVIII. 

The Way to the Attainment of Christian Perfection. 396 

LECTURE XIX. 

The Motives and Reasons for seeking Entire Sanctification-416 

LECTURE XX. 

The Evidences of Entire Sanctification. 432 

LECTURE XXI. 

Address to Professors of Christian Perfection.- 449 




















. 


. 

. 

% 

' 

■ 

’ 











THE 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE 

OF 

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 

« 

LECTURE I. 

WE MUST LEAVE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES. 

“ Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us 
go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance 
from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, 
and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eter¬ 
nal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.” Heb. vi, 1-3. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews is suited to the cha 
racter of such as had been really converted from Juda¬ 
ism, and had experimentally “ received the knowledge 
of the truth.” In the opening of the third chapter, the 
apostle calls those he addresses “ holy brethren,” a 
designation which could with no propriety be given 
“the unbelieving Jews,” as is supposed by Dr. Mac- 
knight, but which supposes that they had in a good 
sense “been once enlightened, and tasted of the 
heavenly gift.” 

This position is clearly taken in the address con¬ 
tained in the text which I make the foundation of the 
present lecture. It is assumed that the persons ad¬ 
dressed had once “ laid the foundation of repentance 
from dead works,” &c. 


8 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


In this lecture my object shall be, first , to speak of 
the principles we are required to leave ; and secondly , 
to show in what sense they are to be left. 

I. I invite attention to the principles which we are 
to leave. 

These principles are here given in six particulars, 
embracing three classes. Under each class we have 
two intimately related principles. The first class I 
shall call inward affections , embracing, 1 . “Repent¬ 
ance from dead works,” and 2. “ Faith toward God.” 
The second, ceremonies: 1. “ Baptism,” and 2. “ Lay¬ 
ing on of hands.” The third, future retribution: 
1. “The resurrection of the dead,” and 2. “Eternal 
judgment.” 

“ Repentance frofri dead works” is repentance of 
all those works which expose the sinner to eternal 
death; hence called vskqov epyuv, works of death. 
“ Faith toward God” is that faith in the being, attri¬ 
butes, and government of God, upon which all rational 
religion must be founded. “ He that cometh to God 
must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of 
them that diligently seek him,” Heb. xi, 6. “ Bap¬ 

tisms” may refer to the outward ordinance, and the 
inward grace, called the baptism of the Spirit. “ The 
laying on of hands” was practised among the Jews on 
several occasions, and was used by Christ and the 
apostles in solemnly dedicating persons to God—or 
consecrating them to the work of the ministry; and 
was accompanied by prayer for the descent of the 
Holy Spirit upon the subject. “ The resurrection of 
the dead,” followed by the “judgment,” called “ eternal,” 
because its consequences or awards are permanent and 
unchangeable. 

We are not bound to suppose this analysis of the 
system of doctrines first promulgated and received, to 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


9 


be perfect. The generals do indeed seem, at least by 
implication, to cover the whole ground of religious 
truth; for every part of religion relates either to the 
regulation of the heart, the conduct of the life, or to 
the future state. But under these general principles 
^>ve have a part of the details for the whole. And 
particulars, which were made matters of special in¬ 
struction, are introduced under each head as spe¬ 
cimens. 

The rr\g apxVS tov Xptarov Xoyov, the beginning of 
the word of Christ, is the same as rrjg ag>xr\g r(t)V Xoyiov 
rov Qeov , the beginning of the words , or oracles of 
God. Chap, v, 12. I give this rendering, as more 
literal, though the common version is a tolerable ex¬ 
pression of the sense of the original. 

It seems, in chap, v, 12, to be more than insinuated 
that these Hebrew Christians had not made that profi¬ 
ciency in first principles which their privileges afforded 
reasons to expect—that they had been dull scholars, 
and deserved reproof for their tardiness in becoming 
acquainted with the great elements of Christian know¬ 
ledge. But instead of giving them a long time to 
remedy this deficiency—instead of leaving them still 
longer in these elements, which it seems they had as 
yet but imperfectly learned, he urges them on to higher 
attainments. The great apostle is not of that class 
of teachers who permit their pupils to be satisfied with 
themselves when they have but imperfectly learned 
their lesson, or suffer them to linger and doze over 
their task His motto is, Onward. He endeavours to 
arouse to action the dilatory, by pointing them to the 
vast heights which are before them, and which are to 
be ascended before they can be “perfect and entire, 
wanting nothing.” The method pursued is, with al¬ 
most the same breath to rebuke present defectiveness. 


10 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


and spur on to higher attainments: to chide past 
negligence, and to urge on to future fidelity and 
diligence. 

II. Let us inquire in what sense we are required to 
leave “the principles of the doctrine of Christ.” 

Commentators widely differ as to the sense which 
should be attached to the words of the apostle in this 
place. The learned Peirce paraphrases the passage 
thus: “ Wherefore I shall waive to discourse concerning 
the first and more obscure discoveries that were made 
of Christ under the old dispensation, and shall go on 
to offer you somewhat more solid and fit for you as 
adult persons, rather than feed you with milk as chil¬ 
dren.”* In this view agree Whitby, Hammond, Mac- 
knight, Bloomfield, and others. But Professor Stuart, 
in accordance with the views of Dr. Clarke and some 
other learned critics, considers the language as “ horta¬ 
tory,” and gives us the following very rational para¬ 
phrase upon it:—“ Wherefore,” that is, since, “ reXeiot 
[the perfect ] only are capable of orepea rpocpr], solid 
food , viz., of receiving, digesting, and duly appre¬ 
ciating, the higher and more difficult doctrines of 
Christianity, and since ye are yet but vrpxioi, [babes,\ 
although ye ought to be advanced in Christian know¬ 
ledge, if regard be had to the long time that ye have 
professed the Christian religion, (v. 12-14;) 6lo, there¬ 
fore, it becomes you to quit this state of immaturity, 
this vrjTnoTTjTa, [infancy,] and advance to a mature 
state, to reXeiorriraf perfection. The meaning of 
afevreg, leaving, in this place, he thinks to be “ quit¬ 
ting the mere initial state of pupilage, advancing for¬ 
ward to a maturer state of instruction and knowledge ; 
or, making such advances, that it shall be unnecessa;y 


See Paraphrases and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


11 


to repeat elementary instruction in the principles of 
Christianity.”* 

We are not to understand “leaving” in the sense 
of abandoning, as prejudicial or useless. As say the 
Westminster divines : “ Not that we are to neglect the 
first principles of religion, but to labour for a greater 
measure of knowledge. 2 Pet. iii, 18. It is as if he 
had said, Seeing it is a shame always to be babes, let 
us, as men grown, seek after stronger meat. Leaving 
—Not casting them for ever behind our backs, suffer¬ 
ing them to slip quite out of our memories; but, not 
staying only upon these, let us go forward, as good 
travellers, in our Christian race.”! 

First , then, we do not understand that we are ad¬ 
monished by the apostle in these words to cease from 
holding these principles, as parts of the gospel. 

They are essential principles in the system, which 
no state of Christian knowledge or experience can dis¬ 
pense with. Were they to be set down among Jewish 
rites, they might now be considered as superseded— 
as constituting a part of a system which is “ waxing 
old, and is ready to vanish away.” But they are called 
“ the doctrine of Christ,” a designation never given to 
the shadowy rites of the Jewish dispensation. Mac- 
knight says, “ I agree with Peirce in thinking ‘ the 
principles of Christ’ mean the principles of the doc¬ 
trine of Christ as contained in the writings of Moses 
and the prophets.”^: And in accordance with this view 
he translates the passage, “dismissing the discourse 
of the principles of Christ,” &c. But both the transla¬ 
tion and the paraphrase, as I conceive, greatly weaken 
the force of the passage, and give it a wrong sense. 

* See Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in loc. 
t Assembly’s Annotations, in loc. 
t Macknight on the Epistles, in loc. 


12 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


For “ the principles of the doctrine of Christ, as con¬ 
tained in the writings of Moses and the prophets,” are 
not to be abandoned or dismissed. All of the law and 
the prophets that is evangelical is so far from being 
left in the background by Christ and the apostles, that 
it is brought forward and considered a part of the 
gospel, and is indeed taught and enforced as all-im* 
♦ portant, and to be dispensed with under no circum¬ 
stances. 

Secondly. Nor do we understand, by these words 
of the apostle, that we may cease to practise upon these 
principles. Can we ever cease to repent of our dead 
works, or to believe in God; or to admit the import¬ 
ance and acknowledge the obligations of our baptism ; 
or to recognise the gift of the Holy Ghost in answer 
to prayer; or to act with a constant reference to the 
resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the eternal 
judgment that is to follow ? These principles are iden¬ 
tical with Christianity itself, and cannot be put away 
without repudiating the whole system. As matters of 
practice, they must be imbodied in the lives of all the 
members of Christ’s mystical body, while their pro¬ 
bation continues. 

Thirdly. Nor may we suppose ourselves authorized 
from this passage to leave the work of inculcating 
these principles. Wherever the ambassadors of Christ 
come, they open their commission by testifying “ re¬ 
pentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus 
Christby calling on men to “ repent and be bap¬ 
tized for the remission of sinsassuring .them that 
upon these terms they “ shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost.” A specimen of grouping several of 
these principles together in a few words, we have in 
the sermon of Peter, delivered after the cure of the 
lame man at the Beautiful gate of the temple. Acts iii, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


13 


19-21. Says he, “ Repent ye, therefore, and be con¬ 
verted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the 
times of refreshing shall come from the presence of 
the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which be¬ 
fore w’as preached unto you: whom the heaven must 
receive until the times of restitution of all things, which 
God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets 
since the world began.” Here the duty of repentance, 
the privilege of pardon, and the refreshings of the Holy 
Spirit, are connected with the coming of Christ, and 
the restitution of all those things spoken by the pro¬ 
phets, or the final retribution. These principles are, 
indeed, far more frequently insisted upon than the 
higher attainments of grace; doubtless for the reason 
that the great mass of men still “ lie in the wicked one” 
—have not so much as begun to lay “the foundation 
of repentance from dead works.” We must, then, not 
neglect to teach these principles in the abstract. We 
must bring them out fully and frequently. We must 
enforce them plainly and powerfully. They must have 
a prominence in all our public and private instructions, 
such as they had of old in the discourses and epistles 
of the holy apostles. 

But there is still a sense, an important sense, in 
which we must leave these “ first principles.” 

We must not rest in them. Being mere elements, 
we must not suppose that, abstractly considered, 
they constitute the whole system. From the abstract 
we must proceed to consider them, and act upon them 
in the concrete; that is, in their connections and rela¬ 
tions with other parts of the perfect whole. For illus¬ 
tration : We must leave these “first principles,” as 
the pupil leaves the alphabet, when he is brought to 
the process of combining letters into syllables, and 
syllables into words, and of words constructing sen- 


14 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


tences, and of sentences making a discourse. We 
must leave them, as the architect leaves the founda¬ 
tion, and proceeds to erect upon it his superstructure. 
We must leave them, as the mathematician leaves his 
axioms, and proceeds to the construction of his de¬ 
monstration. 

To what purpose would the pupil have learned the 
elements of language if he should rest in them ? Where 
the use of continuing to con them over, without 
proceeding any further? What benefit would result 
from the labour and expense of laying the best founda¬ 
tion, if it remain unappropriated—if no building be 
reared upon it ? How long might the mathematician 
occupy himself in ascertaining the axioms of the sci¬ 
ence, without coming at a single valuable result ? And 
what advantage will accrue to us, or to the world, from 
our acquiring the mere elements of Christianity, with¬ 
out reducing them to practice, pushing them out to 
their ulterior results, and connecting them with the 
higher principles of a spiritual life ? 

There are, indeed, no stationary positions in religion. 
We shall never, until we get to heaven, and probably 
not even then, be able to say, we have reached the 
summit of excellence and can advance no further. 
Much less can we consistently take such a position 
upon our first entrance into the school of Christ. Then 
especially should we feel that we have but just com¬ 
menced our course—that we have only started in a 
race which is to be prosecuted with vigour and perse¬ 
verance to the end. And the sooner we leave mere 
elements the better. The great law of habit con¬ 
stantly operates. If we settle down contentedly in our 
first attainments, every moment’s delay there fixes us 
the more firmly, and renders it the more difficult for 
us to strike our tents and move onward to greener 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


15 


pastures and more fruitful fields. We every day be¬ 
come better and better satisfied with our attainments, 
until we lose the things which we had wrought; and 
it may be said in truth, that having begun in the Spirit, 
we are made perfect in the flesh. 

Any foundation, be it ever so firmly laid, if left un¬ 
occupied, will very soon go to decay, and finally 
become a mass of ruins. So the mere elements of 
Christian character will soon be lost, unless we pro¬ 
ceed to advanced ground. To a church which had 
not been sufficiently mindful of this important truth, 
the great apostle gives a most striking admonition: 
“ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye 
should not obey the truth, before whom Jesus Christ 
hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit 
by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ? 
Are ye so foolish ? having begun in the Spirit, are ye 
now made perfect by the flesh ? Have ye suffered so 
many things in vain ? if it be yet in vain.” Gal. iii, 1-4 
Again he says, “ Christ is become of no effect unto 
you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are 
fallen from grace.” And again: “Ye did run well; 
who did hinder you, that ye should not obey the truth ? 
This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.” 
Chap, v, 4, 7, 8. And Christ says, to the angel of the 
church of Ephesus, “ I have somewhat against thee, 
because thou hast left thy first love. Remember, 
therefore, from whence thou art fallen, and repent, 
and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee 
quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his 
place, except thou repent.” Rev. ii, 1,4, 5. The talent 
which the servant hid in a napkin was soon “ taken 
away from him,” and he “ cast into outer darkness,” 
Matt, xxv, 28, 30. 


16 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


From all this we see most clearly, that to come tc 
a pause at the commencement of the course is equal 
to a retreat. It is at least the commencement of a 
retrograde movement. It has often been said, with 
great truth, that there is no standing still in religion. 
Like the vessel in the current without sail or oars, we 
necessarily glide down the stream. Resting is the 
certain precursor of a fatal decline in practical godli¬ 
ness, and continued in, will finally result in apostacy 
and ruin. If, then, we do not wish to end in the flesh 
—to fall from grace—to lose our first love—to be de¬ 
prived of the talent committed to us—to have the 
candlestick removed out of its place—and finally to be 
cast into outer darkness—we must “ leave the things 
which are behind, and go forward to those which are 
before.” 

It can be scarcely necessary further to prove that 
defection is always the result of resting in low attain¬ 
ments. The-position is sustained by the general tenor 
of Scripture instruction and warning directed to the 
church in her militant state. We are clearly told by 
our Lord, that it was “while men slept” that the devil 
“ sowed” his “ tares.” And it is in accordance with 
too much sad experience, that the spirit of quietude 
and self-complacency which too often follows a pro¬ 
fession of religion, is the beginning of a sad decline 
even in elementary principles. An old father says, 

“ the soul’s idling time is the devil’s working time.” 
And quite too many have proved by sad experiment 
the truth of the maxim. 

How fully, then, should all who have been converted 
and inducted into the church—who have entered their 
names among the sacramental hosts of God’s elect— 
be impressed with the fact that the race is yet to be 
run, that the battle is yet to be fought! It does * 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


17 


not become them, having just “ put on the harness,” 
to “ boast as him that putteth it off.” Nay, brethren, 
do not be satisfied with your novitiate. Leave “ first 
principles,” and press onward and upward in the name 
of the Lord. To pause is to go back—and to go back 
is to perish. 

From what has been advanced, the following reflec¬ 
tions seem to be naturally suggested :— 

1. That a portion—alas ! but too large a portion— 
of those who have embraced religion occupy ground, 
to say the least, extremely doubtful. 

How common a case it is for persons to rest satis¬ 
fied with their first small attainments in religion, and 
never to think of any thing further! They have passed 
through a distressing struggle with guilt and fear, and 
have obtained peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ. The world, the flesh, and the devil, held them 
long in bondage, until by the power of grace, after a 
dubious conflict, perhaps of long continuance, they 
were enabled to overcome. They now rejoice in God, 
and praise his delivering goodness. Their language 
is, “ O Lord, I will praise thee; for though thou wast 
angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou 
comfortest me.” Thus far, all is well. But how often 
is this state of mind succeeded by a state of lukewarm¬ 
ness and spiritual apathy ! How many thank God for 
the first victory they have gained, and then act as 
though they considered their enemies all slain ! Fall¬ 
ing asleep in the lap of Delilah, they awake no more 
until totally shorn of their strength. If they do not, in 
theory, embrace the soul-paralyzing doctrine, that a 
Christian’s hopes are the brightest, and his joys the 
purest and strongest, the first few days or weeks of 
his spiritual existence, they do act as though they had 
little or nothing higher to expect in this world. They 


18 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


thank God they are converted, and there they rest. 
Having beaten the enemy at the first onset, they leave 
him to retire to his stronghold and fortify himself, or 
prepare for another attack, while they are engaged in 
feasting upon the spoils of victory. 

When Hannibal had defeated the Romans upon the 
plains of Italy, nothing was wanted but a determined 
spirit of perseverance, to give him the possession 
of Rome itself. But, flushed with their victory, the 
Carthaginians spent the time in rioting oh the spoils 
which should have been employed in pushing their con¬ 
quests. In the mean time the Romans collected their 
whole strength, and soon proved more than a match 
for their terrible invaders. Our foe is wily and power¬ 
ful, and we can only maintain our ground against him 
by pushing forward our conquests. When he is beaten 
at one point, he fortifies another; and when he detects 
some weakness in our fortifications, he resumes the 
attack, and often with fatal effect. 

How many, or how r few, among the mass of those 
who profess the religion of Christ, and who have given 
good evidence of a change of heart, are in this perilous 
state I do not pretend to say. But that this is the 
condition of multitudes there is too much reason to 
believe. But a transient view of the present aspect 
of the Christian churches will be quite sufficient to 
awaken the deepest concern in the thoughtful mind. 
Where is that onward and aggressive movement— 
where that holy violence—where that pressing for¬ 
ward, which characterizes the kingdom of Christ as 
portrayed in the inspired volume? We boast of our 
peace : it is well if it is not the peace of the dead. 
We glory in our triumphs: well, indeed, if they be 
not triumphsover an artful foe, who has only given a 
little ground, that he may get us more fully into his 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


19 


power. The ocean is often still—beautifully smooth, 
just before a storm ; and the stagnant pool is none the 
less pestiferous because it is not agitated by the tem¬ 
pest. Jehovah says, “ Wo to them that are at ease in 
Zion !” Arise, brethren, in the name of God, for “ this 
is not your rest.” Leave “ first principles.” Cast your 
eye up the heights of Zion, and see what glories are 
before you. Make your mark high. Content not 
yourselves with the little you have experienced and 
done. “There is much land yet to be possessed.” 
Stay not on the border of the spiritual Canaan, like 
“ the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe 
of Manasseh,” while the best of the promised land is 
on the other side of Jordan, and is as free for you as 
for others. 

2. Remaining in a state of mere pupilage, while we 
have the means for higher attainments, is dishonour¬ 
able to us, and offensive to God. 

How cutting is the reproof which the apostle admi¬ 
nisters to the Hebrew converts for their low attain¬ 
ments ! “For when,” says he, “for the time ye ought 
to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again 
which be the first principles of the oracles of God,” 
Heb. v, 12. Small progress under great privileges is 
a grievous fault. The scholar who has time, and 
books, and excellent instructers, and yet learns no¬ 
thing, is soon given up as incorrigible. He soon loses 
caste, is degraded, is censured by his friends, and is 
condemned by all. The man of business who, by 
negligence or prodigality, loses his customers, and so 
suffers his business to run down, is despised, and, 
when the pinching hand of poverty seizes him, is 
unpitied. 

And what shall be said of us, if we fail to learn under 
the instructions of our heavenly Teacher, and, with the 


20 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


plenitude of means within our reach for “ laying up in 
store a good foundation against the time to come,” 
remain in a state of spiritual destitution and wretched¬ 
ness ? Has God any honours for us ? Shall we have 
a competency when winter comes ? Will we hear from 
the mouth of the Judge in the day of Jesus Christ, 
“Well done, good and faithful servant; enter thou 
into the joy of thy Lord ?” Or w r ill it be said in thunder 
tones, “Take the unprofitable servant, and cast him 
into outer darkness; there shall be wailing and gnash¬ 
ing of teeth ?” Let those who live in the bosom of the 
church—who enjoy the light of truth shining, in its 
brightness—see that their improvement is such as 
bears a proportion to the means put into their 
hands. Much light, and an abundance of spiritual in¬ 
fluences, connected with no progress, or very slow 
progress in religion is shameful. Where, my bre¬ 
thren, ought we now to have been, in view of what 
God has done for us ? We should have*been men and 
women, but we are mere children. We might have 
been giants, but, alas ! we are mere dwarfs. How can 
we look our Judge in the face, when he shall say, 
“ Give an account of thy stewardship, for thou mayest 
be no longer steward ?” O ! for a holy ambition to do 
something like what we ought to do before we die ! 
When will we be wise ? when properly awake to our 
true interests ? When shall we seek, above every thing, 
“ the honour that cometh from God ?” 

3. Leaving “ first principles,” and going on to per¬ 
fection, is the only way to be secure against final and 
total apostacy. 

This position is most clearly implied in the course 
of argumentation pursued by the apostle in the text 
and its connections. He urges the Hebrew Christians 
to leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and to 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


21 


go on to perfection, by the consideration that it is im¬ 
possible to renew those unto repentance who, after 
being once enlightened, &c., shall fall awaytaking 
it for granted, as a matter of course, that those who do 
not regard his admonitions, and leave the first prin¬ 
ciples of the doctrine of Christ, &c., will “ fall away.” 
Is not this a terrible consideration? Says Richard 
Allen: “As to believers, who have already obtained 
grace, my word to them is, Follow on toward perfec¬ 
tion, in fear of falling back from, or walking unworthy 
of, that grace wherein you stand.”* 

I know, brethren, you do not intend to apostatize, 
and so pour contempt upon the cause of Christ; no¬ 
thing is further from your thoughts. You mean to 
“ hold fast whereunto you have attained, that no one 
take your crown.” But how do you carry out this 
good purpose ? Is it in God’s appointed way ? In what 
does your safety consist ? If in the strength of your 
own resolutions, you will soon be overcome. God 
must sustain you by constant supplies of grace, or you 
are without defence. On what terms has he promised 
to do this ? On condition of your remaining stationary? 
Not at all. The apostle Peter tells us : “And besides 
this, giving all diligence, add to your faith, virtue ; and 
to virtue, knowledge ; and to knowledge, temperance ; 
and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godli¬ 
ness ; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to 
brotherly kindness, charity. For if these things be in 
you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither 
be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is 
blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that 
he was purged from his old sins.” 2 Peter i, 5-9. 

So then, according to the apostle, the way to be 
* Wesley’s Christian Library, vol. xviii, p. 474. 


22 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


fruitful “inthe knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”—• 
to be prosperous, safe, and happy in our Christian 
course, is to “ add to our faith, virtue,” &c. And those 
who “ lack these things,” that is, do not proceed to 
“ add,” &c., are “ blind—and have forgotten that they 
were purged from their old sins.” The note of Dr. 
A. Clarke upon this passage sets the subject in a clear 
and strong light:— 

“ But he that lacketli these things —He, whether 
Jew or Gentile, who professes to have faith in God, 
and has not added to that faith fortitude, knowledge 
temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly, kindness, 
and universal love, is blind; his understanding is dark¬ 
ened, and cannot see afar off; pvonafav, shutting his 
eyes against the light, winking, not able to look truth 
in the face; nor to behold that God whom he once 
knew was reconciled to him: and thus it appears he 
is wilfully blind, and hath forgotten that he was purged 
from his old sins; has, at last, through his nonim¬ 
provement of the grace which he received from God, 
his faith ceasing to work by love, lost the evidence of 
things not seen; for having grieved the Holy Spirit, 
by not showing forth the virtues of him who called him 
into his marvellous light, he has lost the testimony of 
his sonship; and thus, darkness and hardness having 
taken the place of light and filial confidence, be first 
calls all his former experience into doubt, and questions 
whether he had not put enthusiasm in the place of 
religion. By these means his darkness and hardness 
increase, his memory becomes indistinct and confused; 
till, at length, he forgets the work of God on his soul; 
next denies it; and at last asserts, that the knowledge 
of salvation, by the remission of sins, is impossible ; 
and that no man can be saved from sin in this life. 
Indeed, some go so far as to deny the Lord thatbought 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


23 


them ; to renounce Jesus Christ having made atone¬ 
ment for them ; and finish their career of apostacy by 
utterly denying his Godhead. Many cases of this kind 
have I known ; and they are all the consequence of 
believers not continuing to be workers together with 
God, after they had experienced his pardoning love.”* 
What stronger motives, then, can possibly be pre¬ 
sented to induce us to leave the beginning and advance 
rapidly toward the completion of our Christian charac¬ 
ter? It is our honour, our glory, and our crown of 
rejoicing. It is our safety against the incursions of the 
grand adversary of our souls, and the return of our 
lusts to their former dominion. It is our only security 
against utter apostacy, the dismal gulf of infidelity, and 
the' pit of hell! What say you then, brethren. The 
young, who have but just entered upon your Christian 
course—who have scarcely yet learned the elements 
of the system : and the old, who have made but little 
progress toward perfection—who, though you have 
been for many years members of the church, are yet 
mere children in experience; “ having need of milk, 
and not of strong meat—is it not high time for you 
all to cast your eyes over the length and breadth of the 
land ? to go on and drive out the enemies of the Lord ? 
Rest is inglorious—protracted childhood criminal. O 
for a shaking among the dry bones of the valley !—for 
a mighty resurrection in the church—for a simulta¬ 
neous onward movement, on the part of those who 
have enrolled their namqs with the army of Israel! 
Spirit of the Holy One ! come into our hearts, and 
dwell there for evermore ! 


Commentary on the place. 


24 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


LECTURE II. 

THE NATURE OF PERFECTION. 

“ Let us go on unto perfection,” Hebrews vi, 1. 

In the preceding lecture I endeavoured to show 
that we must leave elementary principles, and the 
state of novitiates, and advance. In this my object 
shall be to exhibit the mark at which we are to 
direct our efforts. We must “go on unto perfection.” 

And that we may not act at random, or fight as those 
who beat the air, it will be necessary, if possible, to 
have definite views of that perfection at which we are 
to aim. I shall consequently, in the first place, attempt 
to ascertain the meaning of the term perfection, as it 
is to be understood in the text, and in similar passages. 
Several commentators suppose that by perfection, 
here, the apostle means the higher degrees of know¬ 
ledge. Macknight says : “ The apostle calls the know¬ 
ledge of the doctrines and promises of the gospel, as 
typically set forth in the covenant with Abram, and 
darkly expressed in the figures and prophecies of the 
law, reXeiorrjg, perfection , either in allusion to the 
Greeks, who termed the complete knowledge of their 
mysteries reXeiorrig, or reXeiGxng, perfection ; or in al¬ 
lusion to what he had said chap, v, 14, that strong 
meat belongs to tsXsiov, full-grown men.” 

Perfection here unquestionably implies an advanced 
state of knowledge; but this is but a small part of 
what I conceive to be embraced. I much prefer the 
thorough views of Dr. Clarke to those of Macknight 
and others who agree with him. This distinguished 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


25 


critic paraphrases the passage thus: “ ‘ Let us go on 
• to perfection ’—Let us never rest till we are adult 
Christians; till we are saved from all sin, and aie 
filled with the spirit and power of Christ.” 

In endeavouring to have right conceptions of the 
doctrine of Christian perfection, we may be somewhat 
aided by a correct understanding of the simple idea of 
perfection in the abstract. Perfection signifies com¬ 
pleteness . Hooker says: “We count those things 
perfect which want nothing requisite for the end 
whereunto they were instituted.” So any thing that is 
complete in its hind is perfect. 

As to the different kinds of perfection, or the differ¬ 
ent applications of the term, after an examination of a 
large number of critics upon the subject, the following, 
from Bailey’s “ Dictionarium Britannicum,”* is the 
most satisfactory:— 

The adjective perfect he defines “ [perfectus, L.,J 
entire; to which nothing is wanting, or that has all 
the requisites; also, excellent, accomplished; also, 
arrant; [i. e., mere , downright; t] also, well skilled 
in.” 

“ Perfection, the state or condition of that which 
is perfect; also excellency, great accomplishment. 

“ Absolute perfection, is that wherein all imper¬ 
fection is excluded, such as is that of God, or secun¬ 
dum quid , and in its kind. 

“ Essential perfection, is the possession of all the 
essential attributes; or of all the parts necessary to 
the integrity of a substance. 

“ Natural perfection, is that whereby a thing has 
all its powers or faculties ; and those, too, in their full 

* Folio, printed 1730. 

t Phillips, (1706,) Kersey, (1708,) and Bailey, give this definition to 
arrant. Now it is obsolete. 


26 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


* 


SJ 






* r * 




vigour; all its parts, both principal and secondary; and 
those in their due proportion, constitution, &c. 

“ Moral perfection, is an eminent degree of virtue, 
or moral goodness, to which men arrive by frequently 
repeated acts of beneficence, piety, &c.” 

This definition of “ moral perfection” is lax, but is 
a true exhibition of the sense in which the term was 
employed by many theologians of the last two cen¬ 
turies. The Wesleyan view of morai or Christian per¬ 
fection is, that completeness of the Christian character 
which is required and promised in the gospel, “to 
which men arrive,” not so much “ by frequently re¬ 
peated acts of beneficence, piety, &c.,” as by a true 
and living faith. 

After this general view of the philology of the 
subject, I shall proceed to a discussion of its elements, 
as they are presented in the Scriptures, and in the 
writings of several classes of theologians. 

In the first place, then, let us inquire, What light do 
we derive from the Scriptures upon the subject ? 

I need not attempt to prove, that perfection of some 
sort is presented in the Bible as an attainable state. 
No one will deny this. The simple announcement 
of the text, which I make my motto, is sufficient 
warrant for the assumption at present. And it may 
now be taken for granted that it is the thing we mean 
by Christian perfection , and not the name, that is 
deemed objectionable: for it is difficult to perceive 
how serious and intelligent Christians can object to 
language so strongly sanctioned by Scripture use 
What, then, is the perfection held up in the Scriptures 
as attainable and obligatory? 

If man were mere matter, his highest perfection 
might consist in his physical organization, the propor¬ 
tions of his various parts, and the beauty of his form : 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


27 


if he were a mere animal, then his highest excellence 
might consist in the perfection of his animal functions 
—sensations, instincts, &c.: if he were merely an 
intellectual being, his greatest glory would be in 
the strength and quickness of his intellectual facul¬ 
ties or his understanding. But as he is a moral 
being, his highest perfection must consist in likeness 
to his great Author in his moral character—it must 
consist in “the beauty of holiness.” To Christian 
perfection, then, we must necessarily attach the idea 
of holiness, or sanctification to the fullest extent of 
which we are capable in our present state: —what 
St. Paul means by being sanctified wholly , (1 Thess. 
y, 23,) and by standing complete in all the will of God. 
Col. iv, 12. 

Sanctification is the renovation of the heart; but the 
term, unqualified, does not always, or even generally, 
imply what we mean by Christian perfection. Justifi¬ 
cation implies pardon. But simultaneously with the" 
sinner’s being taken into favour, he is born again, or 
regenerated. This is a real change wrought in the 
soul *by the Spirit of Cod. And those thus changed 
or regenerated are often in the writings of the apostles 
called holy, and sanctified. Mr. Wesley says : “ The 
term sanctified is continually applied by St. Paul to 
all that were justified. By this term alone he rarely, 
if ever, means, ‘ saved from all sin ” and “ that, con¬ 
sequently, it is not proper to use it in that sense, with¬ 
out adding the word wholly , entirely , or the like.”* 

Hence, to speak of a sanctified state simply as a 
state of entire freedom from sin, would be, in the view 
of Mr. Wesley, to depart from the general usage of 
St. Paul. It would be equally foreign from the views 
both of St. Paul .and Mr. Wesley, to speak of those 

* Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 18mo., pp 51, 52. 


28 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


who are not sanctified wholly as in a state of damning 
sin. For they are justified and born anew, and conse¬ 
quently adopted into God’s family. And though their 
sanctification is not complete, they have the pro¬ 
mise of eternal life, and of course have the pledge oi 
complete sanctification, if they should be cut off by 
death in that state. It is most absurd to suppose that 
a justified soul can be lost, without having forfeited 
his justification by backsliding. 

Mr. Wesley, in many places, speaks in very strong 
terms of the blessedness of a state of justification, and 
applies the language of Scripture to that state, which 
certainly implies a high degree qf triumph over the 
lusts of the flesh. The following may be considered 
as specimens of a large class of passages which might 
be quoted:— 

“An immediate and constant fruit of this faith 
whereby we are born of God, a fruit which can in no 
wise be separated from it, no, not for an hour, is power 
over sin ;—power over outward sin of every kind ; over 
every evil word and work; for wheresoever the blood 
of Christ is thus applied, it ‘ purgeth the conscience 
from dead works —and over inward sin ; for it puri- 
fieth the heart from every unholy desire and temper.”* 

Again:— 

“Now, the word of God plainly declares, that even 
those who are justified, who are born again in the 
lowest sense, ‘ do not continue in sin that they cannot 
‘ live any longer therein,’ Rom. vi, 1, 2; that they are 
‘ planted together in the likeness of the death’ of Christ 
verse 5; that their ‘ old man is crucified with him,’ 
the body of sin being destroyed, so that henceforth they 
do not serve sin ; that being dead with Christ, they are 
free from sin, ver. 6, 7; that they are ‘dead unto sin, 

* Works, vol. i, p; 155. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


29 


and alive unto God,’ verse 11 ; that * sin hath no more 
dominion over them,’ who are ‘ not under the law, but 
under grace but that these, ‘ being free from sin, are 
become the servants of righteousness,’ ver. 14, 18.”* 

And again:— 

“Is every man, as soon as he believes, a new crea¬ 
ture, sanctified, pure in heart? Has he then a new 
heart ? Does Christ dwell therein? And is he a temple 
of the Holy Ghost ?—All these things may be affirmed 
of every believer, in a true sense. Let us not, then, 
contradict those who maintain it. Why should we 
contend about words ?”f 

The state of the justified is here represented to 
be truly elevated and glorious. Sin does not reign— 
is conquered, is crucified. And yet, by all these 
strong expressions, and by the application, to a merely 
justified state, of so many striking passages upon the 
subject of the triumphs of grace, from the sacred 
writers, this great and good man did not intend to be 
understood to teach that no inbred sin remains in the 
justified. Let these passages be compared with his 
sermon on “ Sin in Believers.”:): Here he teaches that 
sin may exist where it does not reign , and pronounces 
the contrary opinion “absolutely contrary to all expe¬ 
rience, all Scripture, all common sense.” His views 
upon this subject are very clearly expressed in his 
sermon on Ephes. ii, 8, as follows :— 

“ But we are at present concerned only with that 
salvation which the apostle is directly speaking of. 
And this consists of two general parts, justification and 
sanctification. 

“Justification is another word for pardon. It is the 
forgiveness of all our sins; and, what is necessarily 

* Works, vol. i, p. 359. t Ibid., vol. v, p. 205. 

X Works, vol. i, p. 108. 


30 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


implied therein, our acceptance with God. The price 
whereby this hath been procured for us, (commonly 
termed the meritorious cause of our justification,) is 
the blood and righteousness of Christ; or, to express 
it a little more clearly, all that Christ hath done and 
suffered for us, till he ‘poured out his soul for the 
transgressors.’ The immediate effects of justification 
are, the peace of God, a ‘ peace that passeth all under¬ 
standing,’ and a ‘ rejoicing in hope of the glory of God,’ 

‘ with joy unspeakable and full of glory.’ 

“ And at the same time that we are justified, yea, in 
that very moment, sanctification begins. In that in¬ 
stant we are born again, born from above, born of the 
Spirit: there is a real as well as a relative change. 
We are inwardly renewed by the power of God. We 
feel ‘ the love of God shed abroad in our heart, by the’ 
Holy Ghost which is given unto us,’ producing love to 
all mankind, and more especially to the children of 
God ; expelling the love of the world, the love of plea¬ 
sure, of ease, of honour, of money; together with pride, 
anger, self-will, and every other evil temper ; iri a word, 
changing the earthly, sensual, devilish mind, into ‘ the 
mind which was in Christ Jesus.’ 

“How naturally do those who experience such a 
change, imagine that all sin is gone; that it is utterly 
rooted out of their heart, and has no more any place 
therein. How easily do they draw that inference, ‘I 
feel no sin; therefore I have none: it does not stir; 
therefore it does not exist: it has no motion; there 
fore it has no being .’ 

“ But it is seldom long before they are undeceived, 
finding sin was only suspended, not destroyed. Tempt¬ 
ations return, and sin revives; showing it was but 
stunned before, not dead. They now feel two princi¬ 
ples in themselves, plainly contrary to each other; ‘ the 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


31 


flesh lusting against the Spiritnature opposing the 
grace of God. They cannot deny, that, although they 
still feel power to believe in Christ, and to love God; 
and, although his ‘ Spirit [still] witnesses with their 
spirits, that they are children of God yet they feel in 
themselves sometimes pride or self-will, sometimes 
anger or unbelief. They find one or more of these 
frequently stirring in their heart, though not conquer 
ing; yea, perhaps, ‘ thrusting sore at them that they 
may fallbut the Lord is their help. 

“ How exactly did Macarius, fourteen hundred years 
ago, describe the present experience of the children of 
God ! ‘ The unskilful, [or unexperienced,'] when grace 
operates, presently imagine they have no more sin. 
Whereas they that have discretion cannot deny, that 
even we who have the grace of God may be molested 
again.—For we have often had instances of some 
among the brethren, who have experienced such grace 
as to affirm that they had no sin in them; and yet, 
after all, when they thought themselves entirely freed 
from it, the corruption that lurked within was stirred 
up anew, and they were well nigh burned up.’ 

“ From the time of our being born again the gradual 
work of sanctification takes place. We are enabled, 
‘ by the Spirit, to mortify the deeds of the body,’ of our 
evil nature ; and as we are more and more dead to sin, 
we are more and more alive to God. We go on from 
grace to grace, while we are careful to ‘ abstain from 
all appearance of evil,’ and are*‘ zealous of good works,' 
as we have opportunity of doing good to all men ; 
while we walk in all his ordinances blameless, therein 
worshipping him in spirit and in truth; while we take 
up our cross, and deny ourselves every pleasure that 
does not lead us to God. 

“ It is thus that we wait for entire sanctification ; for 


32 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


a full salvation from all our sins,—from pride, self-will, 
anger, unbelief; or, as the apostle expresses it, 1 go on 
to perfection.’ ” * 

Nothing can be clearer than this statement of the 
case, and, I might add, nothing more consonant with 
the experience of all who have been brought into the 
divine favour through faith in Christ. The soul is 
regenerated, but is not wholly sanctified—sin is sub¬ 
dued, but is not wholly taken away—the body of sin is 
nailed to the cross, but still occasionally struggles. 
The work of sanctification begun is yet to be com¬ 
pleted. In this state the exhortation, “ Let us go on 
to perfection,” is urged upon us, and should come 
home with all the weight of divine authority. 

After this introduction, I shall proceed to the par¬ 
ticular consideration of the main point, viz., What is 
the perfection to which we are to press forward? 
I have already said, it implies complete holiness , or 
entire sanctification. Let us, then, endeavour to ana¬ 
lyze the great subject of entire sanctification, and try 
to ascertain what are its constituent principles, or 
elements. 

Dr. Robinson gives us the following clear and com¬ 
prehensive exhibition of the senses in which the verb 
f Ay hagiazo , I sanctify , and the noun ' Ayiaopog, 
hagiasmos , sanctification , are employed in the New 
Testament and the Septuagint:— 

“ * Ay idfa, f. do co, (ayiog q. v.) not found in Greek 
writers, but often used in Sept, for In N. T. pp. 

to render hyiov. 

“ 1 .to make clean , render pure, a) pp. Heb. ix, 13, 
dytd^ei ngdg rrjv f rjg oapKog Ka-daporrjTa. 

• b) metaph. to render clean in a moral sense, to 
purify , to sanctify. Rom. xv, 16, rjyiaofievrj ev irvev- 
* Works, vol. i, pp. 385, 38P 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


33 


nan aylcd, that the offering of the Gentiles may be 
acceptable, being purified by the Holy Spirit , that is, 
by the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit on the 
hearts of the Gentiles. 1 Cor. vi, 11; Ephes. v, 26; 
1 ^hess. v, 23; 1 Tim. iv, 5; Heb. ii, 11 ; x, 10, 14, 
2!#; xiii, 12; Rev. xxii, 11.—Hence ol rjyiaoyevoL, 
those who are sanctified , that is, Christians in general. 
Acts xx, 32; xxvi, 18; 1 Cor. i, 2; Jude 1. So 
1 Cor. vii, 14, rjyiaarat o avyg—yyiaarai i] yvvy, the 
unbelieving husband or wife is made clean or sanctified , 
that is, is to be regarded, not as unclean, not as an 
idolater, but as belonging to the Christian community. 
See ayiog , 1. b. 13. —So Sept, for nhj? passim. 

“ 2. to consecrate , to devote , that is, to set apart 
from a common to a sacred use; since in the Jewish 
ritual this was one great object of the purifications. 

“ a) spoken of things, Matt, xxiii, 17, 6 vaog o ay 
d£(*)v rov xQ v °bv ; xxiii, 19 ; 2 Tim. ii, 21, orcevog yy i 
aopevov. Sept, for Lev. viii, 10, sq. 30. 

“ b) spoken of persons, to consecrate , as being set 
apart of God and sent by him for the performance of 
his will. John x, 36, 'dv o narrjg yyiacre, whom the 
Father hath consecrated and sent into the world, &c.; 
xvii, 17, dylaoov avrovg ev ry dXrjdeia gov , consecrate 
them through or in the promulgation of thy truth , 
comp. ver. 18; xvii, 19, bis.—Ecclus. xlv, 4; xlix, 7. 

“ 3. to regard and venerate as holy,' to hallow. 
Matt, vi, 9, dyiao$7\T(o to ’ovoyd gov. Luke xi, 2 
1 Pet. iii, 15. Sept, for nhp Isa. ix, 13; xxix, 23. 

“ ' Ayiaopog , ov, 6, (from dyidfa, but not found in 
Greek writers,) pp. consecration , Sept, for mpii Judg. 
xvii, 3. In N. T. sanctification , purity of heart and 
life, holiness. Rom. vi, 19, 22; 1 Thess. iv, 3, 4, 7; 
1 Tim. ii, 15; Heb. xii, 14.—2 Thess. ii, 13, ev ayu 
aopti nvevparog, sanctification of the Spirit , that is, 
3 


34 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


produced by the Holy Spirit. 1 Pet. i, 2.—Meton. 
cause or author of this sanctification, 1 Cor. i, 30.”* 

“ The word sanctify,” says Dr. Clarke, “ has two 
meanings:—1. It signifies to consecrate, to separate 
from earth and common use, and to devote and dedi¬ 
cate to God and his service. 2. It signifies to make 
holy or pure.”— Theology, p. 182. 

The following is from Mr. Watson’s Biblical and 
Theological Dictionary.— “Sanctification, that work of 
God’s grace by which we are renewed after the image 
of God, set apart for his service, and enabled to die 
unto sin and live unto righteousness. Sanctification is 
either of nature, whereby we are renewed after the 
image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true 
holiness, (Ephes. iv, 24; Col. iii, 19,) or of practice, 
whereby we die unto sin, have its power destroyed in 
us, cease from the love and practice of it, hate it as 
abominable, and live unto righteousness, loving and 
studying good works. Tit. ii, 11, 12. Sanctification 
comprehends all the graces of knowledge, faith, re¬ 
pentance, love, humility, zeal, patience, &c., and the 
exercise of them in our conduct toward God or man. 
Gal. v, 22-24; 1 Peter i, 15, 16; Matt, v, vi, vii. 
Sanctification in this world must be complete; the 
whole nature must be sanctified, all sin must be utterly 
abolished, or the soul can never be admitted into the 
glorious presence of God ; (Heb. xi, 14 ; 1 Peter i, 15; 
Rev. xxi, 27;) yet the saints, while here, are in a 
state of spiritual warfare with Satan and his tempta¬ 
tions, with the world and its influence. 2 Cor. ii, 11; 
Gal. v, 17, 24; Rom. vii, 23 ; 1 John ii, 15, 16.” 

Further and more fully to illustrate the subject, I 
shall now proceed to a more extended view of the 
Scripture doctrine of entire sanctification. 

* Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


35 


The subject is most generally presented by the 
apostle as embracing two parts :—1. The death or de¬ 
struction of sin; and 2. The spiritual resurrection, or the 
life of grace. This will be seen clearly in Rom. vi, 1-11: 
—“What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in 
sin, that grace may abound ? God forbid. How shall 
we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know 
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? . . . Now, 
if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall 
also live with him : knowing that Christ, being raised 
from the dead, dieth no more ; death hath no more do¬ 
minion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin 
once : but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Like¬ 
wise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto 
sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 

In this passage the two great principles presented 
fully to view are, the death of the body of sin, and the 
restoration of the soul to a new and spiritual lifje. 

And when the apostle urges the subject of entire 
sanctification upon the Corinthian church, he gives 
us the same twofold view of it: “Having there¬ 
fore,” says he, “these promises, dearly beloved, let 
us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh 
and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 
2 Cor. vii, 1. We are first to seek to eradicate our 
filthiness ; and, secondly, to perfect holiness. 

1. Then sanctification, in its earliest stages, implies 
the subjugation of the body of sin; and complete 
sanctification implies its entire destruction. 

This body has members, which St. Paul particularly 
describes: “ Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, las¬ 
civiousness . . . variance, emulations, wrath, strife, 
seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, 
revellings, and such like,” &c. Gal. v, 19-21. 


36 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


For a clear exposition of this subject, see Spiritual 
Perfection , by Dr. Bates. 

Here we have the body of sin, with its members, 
unsubdued and unbridled, as it is in the minds of the 
unregenerate: originating in the senses, conceptions, 
and imagination; nourished by the desires, and ma¬ 
tured through the instrumentality of the will. And the 
apostle presents them as completed in the lives and 
conduct of wicked men. But in the regenerate this 
“ body of the sins of the flesh,” and these evil “ desires 
of the heart and the mind,” are “ nailed to the cross .” 
The old man is subjected, and grace is in the ascendant. 

But though the corruptions of the heart are subjected, 
and are undergoing the process of mortification, they 
still occasionally stir—there are remains of them which 
mpst be exterminated. Though crucified, they are not 
yet entirely dead. But their complete destruction is 
provided for by the atonement and mediation of Christ, 
and it remains for the regenerate to make the applica¬ 
tion of the remedy. In this sense I understand Rom. 
vi, ^1 : “ Likewise reckon ye yourselves to be dead 
indeed unto sin,”— veicgovg fiev eivat , truly, or in truth 
dead. “Mev, indeed , a conjunction, plainly derived, 
I think, from the Hebrew yaa amen , denoting truth.”* 

2. I hasten now to the consideration of the latter 
branch of the great work of sanctification. That is, 
the life of God in the soul . 

When the apostle exhorts us to reckon ourselves 
“dead indeed unto sin,” he immediately adds, “but 
alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” Rom. 
vi, 11. And when he requires us to cleanse ourselves 
“ from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” he continues, 
“perfecting holiness in the fear of God,” 2 Cor. vii, 1. 
And after giving a catalogue of “the works of the 
* Parkhurst. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


37 


flesh” which are to be eradicated, he immediately pro¬ 
ceeds to give us a list of the opposite graces which are 
to be cultivated. “ The fruit of the Spirit,” says he, 
“ is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, good¬ 
ness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there 
is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified 
the flesh with the affections and lusts.” Gal. v, 19-24. 
“ For,” says he, “ we are his workmanship, created in 
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before 
ordained that we should walk in them,” Ephes. ii, 10. 
And we are required to “ put on the new man, which 
after God is created in righteousness and true holi¬ 
ness,” chap, iv, 24 ; and “ which is renewed in know¬ 
ledge after the image of him that created him,” Col. 
iii, 10. 

From these passages we may gather the following 
essential elements of the life of grace :— knowledge , 
purity , and love. 

(1.) We must be “renewed in knowledge after the 
image of God.” This implies the right direction and 
quickening of the intellectual faculties. The under¬ 
standing being illuminated, it is prepared to discern 
moral distinctions, and to appreciate moral beauty. It 
is directed to the perfections of the Deity, and gazes 
upon the beauty of holiness. It sees the character and 
bearings of the great moral rule, and clearly distin¬ 
guishes between the impulses of the flesh and the 
monitions of the Spirit. It apprehends the atonement 
of Christ, and through this medium sees the way to be 
reconciled to the Father of mercies. “ And this is life 
eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, 
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,” John xvii, 3. 

The complete sanctification of the intellect will cor¬ 
rect all its moral aberrations. It will purify and regu¬ 
late the thoughts, the conceptions, the imagination, 


38 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the memory, and the judgment. The Psalmist felt a 
deep concern that his “thoughts” might be properly 
directed and regulated. Says he, “ Search me, O God, 
and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts,” 
Psa. cxxxix, 23. And a most excellent formula is di¬ 
rected to the same point in these words: “ Cleanse 
the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy 
Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and 
worthily magnify thy holy name.” 

(2.) We must be renewed in “holiness.” The most 
general sense of the term “ holiness” is separation from 
the World, and in this sense it implies both inward and 
outward religion. But in connection with the term 
“ righteousness” I understand it to imply purity of heart 
—the mind that was in Christ Jesus. It consequently 
constitutes the root or foundation of all the active 
Christian graces. It implies not only freedom from 
sin, but dedication to God. And when it is entire, 
then do w z perfect holiness in the fear of God. With¬ 
out any measure of this heaven-born principle the heart 
is full of filthiness; and with its complete reign, and 
universal diffusion through the soul, the seeds of grace 
spring up into a luxuriant growth, and bear the fruits 
of righteousness, to the praise and glory of God. 

(3.) We must be renewed in “righteousness.” 
Righteousness implies the conformity of the motions 
of the heart and the actions of the life to the will of 
God. The highest evangelical sense of the term im¬ 
plies loving God with all the heart, and our neighbour 
as ourselves. St. Paul says, “ Love is the fulfilling 
of the law,” Rom. xiii, 10; vofxov , a full 

performance of the law. ' And St. John speaks of 
“perfect love,” 1 John iv, 17, 18;—a love that is 
without alloy—and that is complete—filling the whole 
soul, bringing all the thoughts and affections “ into 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


39 


captivity to the obedience of Christ.” Love is the 
sum of the evangelical law; and when, in the language 
of St. John, it is “made perfect,” all the sensibilities 
of the soul are restored to their appropriate objects, 
and the voluntary power is conformed to the will of 
God, or, in other words, the affections and the will are 
fully sanctified. 

And who will say that any thing short of the entire 
man—the intellect, the sensibilities, the will, and the 
senses—is intended by the apostle in that comprehen¬ 
sive prayer, “ And the very God of peace sanctify you 
wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, 
and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of 
our Lord Jesus Christ,” 1 Thess. v, 23. Indeed, this 
seems to cover the whole ground. The whole man 
—all the powers of his soul, and all the functions of 
his body are embraced. All these may be sanctified 
—sanctified wholly—and “preserved blameless unto 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” A nd to give 
the fullest assurance of this high privilege, the apostle 
adds, “ Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will 
do it,” verse 24. 

Having exhausted so much time upon the Scripture 
sense of entire sanctification, I must waive the views 
which have been presented by theologians until another 
occasion. I shall now conclude with a brief improve - 
merit. 

1. I would ask those who have experienced justify¬ 
ing grace, but still feel the remains of the carnal mind, 
whether the entire sanctification of which I have been 
speaking does not appear necessary to the high ends 
of Christianity? Can we, dear brethren, feel the 
sediment of our inward corruptions stirred even by 
slight circumstances of temptation, and not feel that 
we need to be entirely cleansed from inward sin ? 


40 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Is it not a source of heartfelt grief, that the hateful 
passions of lust, anger, pride, covetousness, jealousy, 
&c., are often detected in our heart ? Do these roots 
of bitterness spring up and trouble us, and yet are 
we satisfied with our state ? How should these things 
bring us into the dust; and with what earnestness 
should we groan to be delivered! We have doubtless 
often felt these enemies of the Lord, and of our own 
peace, as thorns in our sides and as pricks in our 
eyes. We have compelled them, for the time, to give 
the groundwe have prayed, resolved, and re¬ 
resolved, and yet we have too much evidence that 
“the Canaanite” still remains “in the land.” We 
have prayed with the Psalmist, “ Create in me a clean 
heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,” 
and yet, alas! is not our condition but too accurately 
described by the poet— 

“ With outstretch’d hands and streaming eyes, 

Oft I begin to grasp the prize ; 

I groan, I strive, I watch, I pray, 

But O ! how soon it dies away! 

The deadly slumber still I feel, 

Afresh upon my spirit steal!” 

2. Does not this complete renewing appear de¬ 
sirable ? Can we glorify God in any way so fully as 
by a full conformity of heart and life to his holy will ? 
Is any thing so beautiful, so glorious in the whole uni¬ 
verse, as complete'holiness ? What so fully promotive 
of our own happiness, as entire conformity to the image 
of God ? 0, why should we not “ serve the Lord in 
th 3 beauty of holiness ?” Why not “ rejoice evermore, 
pray without ceasing, and in every thing give thanks ?” 
How beggarly is all the glory of this world in compari¬ 
son with the “ pearl of perfect love !” How insipid 
the pleasures of sense, in comparison with “ joy and 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


41 


peace in believing!” How utterly worthless all the 
honours of the world, in comparison with the peculiar 
honours of the “ saints” or holy ones in whom the 
Lord “ delighteth!” Here are riches, and honours, 
and pleasures, pure as the source whence they ema¬ 
nate, glorious as heaven, and lasting as eternity ! 


LECTURE III. 

THEORIES ON THE DOCTRINE OF PERFECTION-WESLEYAN 

THEORY. 

“ Let us go on unto perfection,” Hebrews vi, 1. 

Having, in the preceding lecture, deduced the doc¬ 
trine of entire sanctification, or Christian perfection, 
from the Scriptures, I shall next proceed to present 
the leading theories which have been maintained upon 
the subject by Christian divines. 

And I shall begin with what, for distinction’s sake, 
I shall denominate the Wesleyan theory of evangelical 
perfection. 

This theory simply asserts the attainableness , in the 
present life , of a state of holiness truly denominated 
Christian perfection. This Christian perfection 
implies loving God with all the heart , soul , mind , and 
strength—a perfect fulfilment of the terms of salvation. 
These terms being based upon the covenant of grace, 
do not imply a perfect compliance with the requisitions 
of the covenant of works. In relation to the latter it 
is truly said, “ All have sinned, and come short of the 
glory of God.” “ There is not a just man upon earth, 
that doeth good, and sinneth not.” “ If we say that 
we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” 


42 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


The following are the views of our standard writers 
upon the subject. I begin with Mr. Wesley :— 

“On Monday, June 25, 1744, our first conference 
began; six clergymen and all our preachers being 
present. The next morning we seriously considered 
the doctrine of sanctification, or perfection. The ques¬ 
tions asked concerning it, and the substance of the 
answers given, were as follows :— 

“ * Question. What is it to be sanctified? 

“ ‘Answer. To be renewed in the image of God, 
“ in righteousness and true holiness.” 

“ ‘ Q. What is implied in being a perfect Christian? 

“ ‘ A. The loving God with all our heart, and mind, 
and soul. Deut. vi, 5. 

“ ‘ Q. Does this imply, that all inward sin is taken 
away ? 

“ ‘ A. Undoubtedly; or how can we be said to be 
“ saved from all our uncleannesses ?” Ezek. xxxvi, 29.’ 

“ Our second conference began Aug. 1, 1745. The 
next morning we spoke of sanctification as follows :— 

“ ‘ Q. When does inward sanctification begin ? 

“ ‘A. In the moment a man is justified. (Yet sin 
remains in him, yea, the seed of all sin, till he is sancti¬ 
fied throughout.) From that time a believer gradually 
dies to sin, and grows in grace. 

“ ‘ Q,. Is this ordinarily given till a little before death ? 

“ ‘ A. It is not, to those who expect it no sooner. 

“ ‘ Q. But may we expect it sooner ? 

“ ‘A- Why not? For, although we grant, (1.) That 
the generality of believers, whom we have hitherto 
known, were not so sanctified till near death; (2.) 
That few of those to whom St. Paul wrote his epistles 
were so at that time ; nor, (3.) He himself at the time 
of writing his former epistles; yet all this does not 
prove that we may not be so to-day. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


43 


“ ‘ Q. In what manner should we preach sanctifi 
cation ? 

“ ‘A. Scarce at all to those who are not pressing 
forward ; to those who are, always by way of promise ; 
always drawing, rather than driving.’ 

“ Our third conference began Tuesday, May 26, 
1746. In this we carefully read over the minutes of 
the two preceding conferences, to observe whether any 
thing contained therein might be retrenched or altered 
on more mature consideration. But we did not see 
cause to alter in any respect what we had agreed upon 
before. 

“Our fourth conference began on Tuesday, June 
16, 1747. As several persons were present who did 
not believe the doctrine of perfection, we agreed to 
examine it from the foundation. 

“ In order to this it was asked, 

“ 1 How much* is allowed by our brethren who differ 
from us with regard to entire sanctification ? 

“ ‘ A. They grant, (1.) That every one must be eu 
tirely sanctified in the article of death. (2.) That till 
then a believer daily grows in grace, comes nearer 
and nearer to perfection. (3.) That we ought to be 
continually pressing after it, and to exhort all others 
so to do. 

“ ‘ Q. What do we allow them ? 

“ 4 A. We grant, (1.) That many of those who have 
died in the faith, yea, the greater part of those we have 
known, were not perfected in love, till a little before 
their death. (2.) That the term sanctified is con¬ 
tinually applied by St. Paul to all that were justified. 
3.) That by this term alone he rarely, if ever, means, 
‘ saved from all sin.” (4.) That, consequently, it is 
not proper to use it in that sense, without adding the 
word wholly , entirely , or the like. (5.) That the ;n- 


44 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP 


spired writers almost continually speak of or to those 
who were justified, but very rarely of or to those who 
were wholly sanctified.* (6.) That, consequently, it 
behooves us to speak almost continually of the state 
of justification ; but more rarely,! at least'in full and 
explicit terms, concerning entire sanctification. 

“ 4 Q. What, then, is the point where we divide ? 

“ ‘ A. It is this : should we expect to be saved from 
all sin before the article of death V 

Again :— 

“ ‘ Quest. What is Christian perfection ? 

“;‘Ans. The loving God with all our heart, mind, 
soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong tem¬ 
per, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and 
that all the thoughts, words, and actions, are governed 
by pure love. 

“ ‘ Q. Do you affirm that this perfection excludes 
all infirmities, ignorance, and mistake ? 

“ ‘ A. I continually affirm quite the contrary, and 
always have done so. 

“ ‘ Q. But how can every thought, word, and work, 
be governed by pure love, and the man be subject at 
the same time to ignorance and mistake ? 

“ ‘ A. I see no contradiction here: “ A man may be 
filled with pure love, and still be liable to mistake.” 
Indee’d, I do not expect to be freed from actual mis¬ 
takes till this mortal puts on immortality. I believe 
this to be a natural consequence of the soul’s dwelling 
in flesh and blood. For we cannot now think at all, 
but by the mediation of those bodily organs which have 

* “ That is, unto those alone, exclusive of others; but they speak 
to them, jointly with others, almost continually.” 

f “ More rarely, I allow; but yet in some places very frequently, 
strongly, and explicitly.” 

t Plain Account of Christian Perfection, pp. 48-51 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


45 


suffered equally with the rest of our frame. And hence 
we cannot avoid sometimes thinking wrong, till this 
corruptible shall have put on incorruption. 

“ But we may carry this thought further yet. A 
mistake in judgment may possibly occasion a mistake 
in practice. For instance : Mr. De Renty’s mistake 
touching the nature of mortification, arising from preju¬ 
dice of education, occasioned that practical mistake, 
his wearing an iron girdle. And a thousand such in¬ 
stances there may be, even in those who are in the 
highest state of grace. Yet, where every word and 
action springs from love, such a mistake is not pro¬ 
perly a sin. However, it cannot bear the rigour of 
God’s justice, but needs the atoning blood. 

“ ‘ Q. What was the judgment of all our brethren 
who met at Bristol in August, 1758, on this head? 

“ ‘A. It was expressed in these words: (1.) Every 
one may mistake as long as he lives. (2.) A mistake 
in opinion may occasion a mistake in practice. (3.) 
Every such mistake is a transgression of the perfect 
law. Therefore, (4.) Every such mistake, were it not 
for the blood of atonement, would expose to eternal 
damnation. (5.) It follows, that the most perfect have 
continual need of the merits of Christ, even for their 
actual transgressions, and may say for themselves, as 
well as for their brethren, “ Forgive us our trespasses.” 

“ £ This easily accounts for what might otherwise 
seem to be utterly unaccountable; namely, that those 
who are not offended when we speak of the highest 
degree of love, yet will not hear of living without sin. 
The reason is, they know all men are liable to mistake, 
and that in practice as well as in judgment. But they 
do not know, or do not observe, that this is not sin, if 
love is the sole principle of action. 

“ ‘ Q. But still, if they live without sin. does not 


46 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


this exclude the necessity of a mediator? At least, is 
it not plain that they stand no longer in need of Christ 
in his priestly office ? 

“ ‘A. Far from it. None feel their need of Christ 
like these; none so entirely depend upon him. For 
Christ does not give life to the soul separate from, but 
in and with himself. Hence his words are equally 
true of all men, in whatsoever state of grace they are : 

As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it 
abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide 
in me: Without” (or separate from) “ me ye can do 
nothing.” 

“ ‘ In every state we need Christ in the following 
respects :—(1.) Whatever grace we receive, it is a free 
gift from him. (2.) We receive it as his purchase, 
merely in consideration of the price he paid. (3.) We 
have this grace, not only from Christ, but in him. For 
our perfection is not like that of a tree, which flourishes 
by the sap derived from its own root, but, as was said 
before, like that of a branch which, united to the vine, 
bears fruit; but, severed from it, is dried up and 
withered. (4.) All our blessings, temporal, spiritual, 
and eternal, depend on his intercession for us, which is 
one branch of his priestly office, whereof therefore we 
have always equal need. (5.) The best of men still 
need Christ in his priestly office to atone for their omis 
sions, their shortcomings, (as some not improperly 
speak,) their mistakes in judgment and practice, and 
their defects of various kinds. For these are all devia¬ 
tions from the perfect law, and consequently need an 
atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins, we 
apprehend may appear from the words of St. Paul 
“ He that loveth, hath fulfilled the law ; for love is the 
fulfilling of the law,” Rom. xiii, 10. Now, mistakes, 
and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the cor • 


CHRISTJAJN PERFECTION. 


47 


ruptible state of the body, are no way contrary to love; 
nor, therefore, in the Scripture sense, sin. 

‘To explain myself a little further on this head : 
(1.) Not only sin, properly so called, (that is, a volun¬ 
tary transgression of a known law,) but sin, improperly 
so called, (that is, an involuntary transgression of a 
divine law, known or unknown,) needs the atoning 
blood. (2.) I believe there is no such perfection in 
this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions, 
w r hich I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the 
ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality 
(3.) Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never 
use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. (4.) I 
believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable 
to these involuntary transgressions. (5.) Such trans¬ 
gressions you may call sins, if you please: I do not 
for the reasons above mentioned.’ ”* 

And again :— 

“ Some thoughts occurred to my mind this morning 
concerning Christian perfection,, and the manner and 
time of receiving it, which I believe may be useful to 
set down. 

“ 1. By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, pa¬ 
tient love of God and our neighbour, ruling our tem¬ 
pers, words, and actions. 

“ I do not include an impossibility of falling from it, 
either in part or in whole. Therefore, I retract several 
expressions in our hymns, which partly express, partly 
imply, such an impossibility. 

“ And I do not contend for the term sinless, though 
I do not object against it. 

“ 2. As to the manner. I believe this perfection is 
always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; 
consequently in an instant. 

* Plain Account of Christian Perfection, pp. 62-67 


48 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“ But I believe a gradual work, both preceding and 
following that instant. 

“ 3. As to the time. I believe this instant generally 
is the instant of death, the moment before the soul 
leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, 
or forty years before. 

“ I believe it is usually many years after justifica 
tion; but that it may be within five years or five 
months after it, I know no conclusive argument to the 
contrary. 

“ If it must be many years after justification, I would 
be glad to know how many. Pretium quotus arroget 
annus ? [What Jength of time will sanction it ?] 

“ And how many days or months, or even years, can 
any one allow to be between perfection and death? 
How far from justification must it be; and how near 
to death ? 

“ London, Jan. 27, 1767.”* 

Next to Mr. Wesley we reckon Mr. Fletcher. His 
statement of the doctrine of evangelical perfection is 
as follows:— 

“We give the name of Christian perfection to that 
maturity of grace and holiness which established adult 
believers attain to under the Christian dispensation; 
and thus we distinguish that maturity of grace both 
from the ripeness of grace, which belongs to the dis¬ 
pensation of the Jews below us ; and from the ripeness 
of glory which belongs to departed saints above us. 
Hence it appears, that by Christian perfection we mean 
nothing but the cluster and maturity of the graces which 
compose the Christian character in the church militant. 

“ In other words, Christian perfection is a spiritual 
constellation made up of these gracious stars,—perfect 
* Works, vol. vi, pp. 531, 532. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


49 


repentance, perfect faith, perfect humility, perfect 
meekness, perfect self-denial, perfect resignation, per¬ 
fect hope, perfect charity for our visible enemies, as 
well as for our earthly relations; and, above all, per¬ 
fect love for our invisible God, through the explicit 
knowledge of our Mediator, Jesus Christ. And as this 
last star is always accompanied by all the others, as 
Jupiter is by Iris' satellites ; we frequently use, as 
St. John, the phrase ‘perfect love,’ instead of the word 
‘ perfection understanding by it the pure love of God, 
shed abroad in the hearts of established believers by 
the Holy Ghost, which is abundantly given them under 
the fulness of the Christian dispensation. 

“ Should any one ask if the Christian perfection 
which we contend for is a sinless perfection, we reply, 
‘ Sin is the transgression of’ a divine ‘ law;’ and man 
may be considered either as being under the anti¬ 
evangelical, Christless, remediless law of our Creator; 
or as being under the evangelical, mediatorial, remedy¬ 
ing law of our Redeemer: and the question must be 
answered according to the nature of these two laws. 

“ With respect to the first, that is, the Adamic, 
Christless law of innocence and paradisiacal perfec¬ 
tion, we utterly renounce the doctrine of sinless per¬ 
fection, for three reasons. We are conceived and born 
in a state of sinful degeneracy, whereby that law is 
already virtually broken. Our mental and bodily powers 
are so enfeebled, that we cannot help actually breaking 
that law in numberless instances, even after our full 
conversion. And, when once we have broken that 
law, it considers us as transgressors for ever: nor can 
it any more pronounce us sinle&s than the rigorous law 
which condemns a man to be hanged for murder can 
absolve a murderer, let his repentance and faith be 
perfect. Therefore, I repeat it, with respect 


ever so 


50 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


to the Christless law of paradisiacal obedience, we 
entirely disclaim sinless perfection. 

“ But Christ has so completely fulfilled our Creator’s 
paradisiacal law of innocence, which allows neither of 
repentance nor of renewed obedience, that we shall not 
be judged by that law; but by a law adapted to our 
present state and circumstances,—a milder law, called 
‘the law of Christ;’ that is, the Mediator’s law, which 
is, like himself, ‘full of’ evangelical ‘grace and truth.’ 

“ We do not doubt, but as a reasonable, loving father 
never requires of his child who is only ten years old 
the work of one who is thirty years of age; so our 
heavenly Father never expects of us, in our debilitated 
state, the obedience of immortal Adam in paradise, or 
the uninterrupted worship of sleepless angels in heaven. 
We are persuaded, therefore, that, for Christ’s sake, 
he is pleased with an humble obedience to our present 
light, and a loving exertion of our present powers ; ac¬ 
cepting our gospel services according to what we have, 
and not according to what we have not. Nor dare we 
call that loving exertion of our present power sin; 
Jest by so doing we should contradict the Scriptures, 
confound sin and obedience, and remove all the land¬ 
marks which divide the devil’s common from the 
Lord’s vineyard. 

“ We exhort the strongest believers to ‘grow up to 
Christ in all things ;’ asserting that there is no holiness 
and no happiness in heaven (much less upon earth) 
which does not admit of a growth, except the holiness 
and happiness of God himself; because, in the very 
nature of things, a being absolutely perfect, and in every 
sense infinite, can never have any thing added to him. 
But infinite additions may be made to beings every way 
finite, such as glorified saints and holy angels are. 

“ Hence, it appears, that the comparison which we 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


5) 


make between the ripeness of a fruit, and the maturity 
of a believer’s grace, cannot be carried into an exact 
parallel. For a perfect Christian grows far more than 
a feeble believer, whose growth is still obstructed by 
the shady thorns of sin, and by the draining suckers 
of iniquity. Besides, a fruit which is come to its per¬ 
fection, instead of growing, falls and decays : whereas 
a ‘ babe in Christ’ is called to grow till he becomes a 
perfect Christian; a perfect Christian, till he becomes 
a disembodied spirit; a disembodied spirit, till he 
reaches the perfection of a saint glorified in body and 
soul; and such a saint, till he has fathomed the infinite 
depths of divine perfection, that is, to all eternity. For 
if we go on ‘ from faith to faith,’ and are spiritually 
‘ changed from glory to glory,’ by beholding God 
‘ darkly through a glass’ on earth; much more shall 
we experience improving changes, when we shall ‘ see 
him as he is,’ and behold him ‘ face to face,’ in various, 
numberless, and still brighter discoveries of himself in 
heaven.”* 

The following are Dr. Clarke’s views :—“ The word 
‘ sanctify’ has two meanings. 1. It signifies to conse¬ 
crate, to separate from earth and common use, and to 
devote or dedicate to God and his service. 2. It sig¬ 
nifies to make holy or pure. 

“ Many talk much, and indeed well, of what Christ 
has done for us : but how little is spoken of what he is 
to do in us ! and yet all that he has done for us is in 
reference to what he is to do in us. He was incar¬ 
nated, suffered, died, and rose again from the dead; 
ascended to heaven, and there appears in the presence 
of God for us. These were all saving, atoning, and 
mediating acts for us; that he might reconcile us to 
God; that he might blot out our sin ; that he might 
* Last Check, pp. 329-332. 


52 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


purge our consciences from dead works ; that he might 
bind the strong man armed—take away the armour in 
which he trusted, wash the polluted heart, destroy 
every foul and abominable desire, all tormenting and 
unholy tempers; that he might make the heart his 
throne, fill the soul with his light, power, and life; 
and, in a word, ‘ destroy the works of the devil.’ These 
are done in us; without which we cannot be saved 
unto eternal life. But these acts done in us are con¬ 
sequent on the acts done for us: for had he not been 
incarnated, suffered, and died in our stead, we could 
not receive either pardon or holiness ; and did he not 
cleanse and purify our hearts, we could not enter into 
the place where all is purity: for the beatific vision is 
given to them only who are purified from all unrighte¬ 
ousness ; for it is written, ‘ Blessed are the pure in 
heart, for they shall see God.’ Nothing is purified by 
death;—nothing in the grave ; nothing ip heaven. The 
living stones of the temple, like those of that at Jeru¬ 
salem, are hewn, squared, and cut here, in the church 
militant, to prepare them to enter into the composition 
of the church triumphant. 

“ This perfection is the restoration of man to the 
state of holiness from which he fell, by creating him 
anew in Christ Jesus, and restoring to him that image 
and likeness of God which he has lost. A higher 
meaning than this it cannot have; a lower meaning it 
must not have. God made man in that degree of per¬ 
fection which was pleasing to his own infinite wisdom 
and goodness. Sin defaced this divine image ; Jesus 
came to restore it. Sin must have no triumph; and 
the Redeemer of mankind must have his glory. But 
if man be not perfectly saved from all sin, sin does 
triumph, and Satan exult, because they have done a 
mischief that Christ either cannot or will not remove. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


53 


To say he cannot, would be shocking blasphemy against 
the infinite power and dignity of the great Creator; to 
say he will not, would be equally such against the infi¬ 
nite benevolence and holiness of his nature. All sin, 
whether in power, guilt, or defilement, is the work 
of the devil; and Jesus came to destroy the work 
of the devil ; and as all unrighteousness is sin, so his 
blood cleanseth from all sin, because it cleanseth from 
all unrighteousness. 

“ Many stagger at the term perfection in Christian¬ 
ity ; because they think that what is implied in it is 
inconsistent with a state of probation, and savours of 
pride and presumption: but we must take good heed 
how we stagger at any word of God; and much more 
how we deny or fritter away the meaning of any of his 
sayings, lest he reprove us, and we be found liars before 
him. But it may be that the term is rejected because 
it is not understood. Let us examine its import. 

“ The word ‘ perfection,’ in reference to any person 
or thing, signifies that such person or thing is complete 
or finished; that it has nothing redundant, and is in 
nothing defective. And hence that observation of a 
learned civilian is at once both correct and illustrative, 
namely, ‘ We count those things perfect which want 
nothing requisite for the end whereto they were insti¬ 
tuted.’ And to be perfect often signifies 4 to be blame¬ 
less, clear, irreproachable;’ and, according to the above 
definition of Hooker, a man may be said to be perfect 
who answers the end for which God made him; and 
as God requires every man to love him with all his 
heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbour as 
himself; then he is a perfect man that does so; he 
answe:s the end for which God made him ; and this is 
more evident from the nature of that love which fills 
his heart: for, as love is the principle of obedience, so 


54 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


he that loves his God with all his powers will obey him 
with all his powers; and he who loves his neighbour 
as himself will not only do no injury to him, but, on the 
contrary, labour to promote his best interests. Why 
the doctrine which enjoins such a state .of perfection 
as this should be dreaded, ridiculed, or despised, is a 
most strange thing; and the opposition to it can only 
be from that carnal mind that is enmity to God ; ‘ that 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.’ 
And had I no other proof that man is fallen from God, 
his opposition to Christian holiness would be to me 
sufficient. 

The w jj 0 l e design of God was to restore man to 
his image, and raise him from the ruins of his fall; in 
a word, to make him perfect; to blot out all his sins, 
< purify his soul, and fill him with holiness; so that no 
unholy temper, evil desire, or impure affection or pas¬ 
sion, shall either lodge, or have any being within him ; 
this, and this only, is true religion, or Christian perfec¬ 
tion ; and a less salvation than this would be disho¬ 
nourable to the sacrifice of Christ, and the operation 
of the Holy Ghost; and would be as unworthy of the 
appellation of ‘ Christianity,’ as it would be of that of 
‘holiness or perfection.’ They who ridicule this are 
scoffers at the word of God ; many of them totally irre- 
V ligious men, sitting in the seat of the scornful. They 
^ who deny it, deny the whole scope and design of divine 
revelation and the mission of Jesus Christ. And they 
^ who preach the opposite doctrine are either speculative 
Antinomians, or pleaders for Baal. 

“ When St. Paul says he ‘ warns every man, and 
teaches every man in all wisdom, that he may present 
every man perfect in Christ Jesus,’ he must mean 
something. What, then, is this something ? It must 
mean ‘that holiness without which none shall see the 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 55 

Lord.’ # Call it by what name we please, it must imply 
the pardon of all transgression, and the removal of the 
whole body of sin and death; for this must take place 
before we can be like him, and see him as he is, in the 
effulgence of his own glory. This fitness, then, to ap¬ 
pear before God, and thorough preparation for eternal 
glory, is what I plead for, pray for, and heartily recom¬ 
mend to all true believers, under the name of Christian 
perfection. Had I abetter name, one more energetic, 
one with a greater plenitude of meaning, one more 
worthy of the efficacy of the blood that bought our 
peace, and cleanseth from all unrighteousness, I would 
gladly adopt and use it. Even the word ‘ perfection’ 
has, in some relations, se many qualifications and 
abatements that cannot comport with that full and glo¬ 
rious salvation recommended in the gospel, and bought 
and sealed by the blood of the cross, that I would 
gladly lay it by, and employ a word more positive and 
unequivocal in its meaning, and more worthy of the 
merit of the infinite atonement of Christ, and of the 
energy of his almighty Spirit; but there is none in 
our language; which I deplore as an inconvenience 
and a loss.”* 

The doctrine of “ entire sanctification, or the per¬ 
fected holiness of believers,” is thus asserted by Mr. 
Watson :—“ That a distinction exists between a rege¬ 
nerate state and a state of entire and perfect holiness, 
will be generally allowed. Regeneration, we have 
seen, is concomitant with justification; but the apos¬ 
tles, in addressing the body of believers in the churches 
to whom they wrote their epistles, set before them, 
both in the prayers they offer in their behalf, and in 
the exhortations they administer, a still higher degree 
of deliverance from sin, as well as a higher growth in 
* Christian Theology, pp. 182-185. 


56 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Christian virtues. Two passages only need be,quoted 
to prove this. 1 Thess. v, 23, ‘And the very Hod of 
peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole 
spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ 2_ Cor. vii, 1, 
‘ Having these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse 
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per¬ 
fecting holiness in the fear of God.’ In both these 
passages deliverance from sin is the subject spoken 
of; and the prayer in one instance, and the exhortation 
in the other, goes to the extent of the entire sanctifica¬ 
tion of ‘ the soul’ and ‘ spirit,’ as well as of the ‘ flesh' 
or ‘ body,’ from all sin; by which can only be meant 
our complete deliverance from all spiritual pollution, 
all inward depravation of the heart, as well as that 
which, expressing itself outwardly by the indulgence 
of the senses, is called ‘filthiness of the flesh.’ ”* 

The following are Mr. Treffry’s views:—“ Chris¬ 
tianity being the doctrine of Christ, we infer that 
Christian perfection implies a conformity to the will 
of Christ, in all that relates to inward and outward 
holiness, to the temper of our minds, and the conduct 
of our lives : or, in other words, it is the full maturity 
of the Christian principle, and the consistent and uni¬ 
form exemplification of Christian practice. By the 
Christian principle, we understand that divine virtue, 
from which the several graces and fruits of Christi¬ 
anity spring, and by which they are supported and kept 
in continual operation. Or, in other words, it is that 
which resembles the germinating power in vegetation, 
that unfolds itself in buds, blossoms, and fruits, con¬ 
taining ‘ within it, as in an embryo state, the rudiments 
of all true virtue; which, striking deep its roots, though 
feeble and lowly in its beginnings, silently progressive, 

* Institutes, part ii, chap. xxix. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


57 


and almost insensibly maturing, yet will shortly, even 
in the bleak and churlish temperature of this world, 
aft up its head and spread abroad its branches, bearing 
abundant fruits.”* 

Again this author says :—“ Perfection has a twofold 
character; there is a perfection of parts, and a perfec 
tion of degrees. A thing is perfect in the former sense, 
when it possesses all the properties or qualities which 
are essential to its nature, without any deficiency, or 
redundancy; thus a machine is perfect, when it has 
all its parts, and these parts so admirably disposed as 
completely to answer the. purpose for which it is 
formed. Thus a human body is perfect, when it has 
all the limbs, muscles, arteries, veins, &c., that belong 
to a human body; and thus I conceive every Christian 
believer is perfect, as he is endowed with all the graces 
of the Spirit, and the ‘ fruits of righteousness, which 
are by Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.’ 
And this kind of perfection admits of no increase; any 
addition would deface the beauty and destroy the har¬ 
mony of the whole: add another wheel to your watches, 
and the purpose would be defeated for which they are 
formed; imagine another limb joined to a human body, 
and it would disfigure, rather than beautify it, and re¬ 
tard, rather than accelerate its motion. In religion, 
indeed, the imagination cannot picture any additional 
virtue, nor the mind conceive of any new grace to be 
joined to the Christian character; the feeblest saint is 
as perfect in this sense as the most established Chris¬ 
tian, and the babe as complete as the man. And I 
greatly question whether the glorified spirits in heaven 
are more perfect in this view than the saints upon earth; 
for if old things pass away, and all things become new, 
when the soul is vitally united to Christ, may we not 

* Treatise on Christian Perfection, pp. 11, 12. 


58 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


suppose that the most consummate state of blessed¬ 
ness in the kingdom of God consists in the endless 
accessions which those graces will receive that adorn 
the soul in this world. 

“ Do the spirits of just men made perfect love God 
with an intense ardour and growing attachment ? And 
is not ‘ the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by 
the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us V Do not we 
‘ love him because he first loved us V Do they possess 
‘ a fulness of joy, and pleasures for evermore V And 
do not ‘ we rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of 
glory V ‘ And return to Zion with singing, and ever¬ 
lasting joy upon our heads V 

“ Do they see Christ as he is, and participate his 
likeness? ‘And do not we behold as in a glass the 
glory of the Lord, till changed into the same image 
from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord V 
“ Do they say with a loud voice, ‘ Worthy is the 
Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, 
and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and 
blessing V And do not ‘ we sing and make melody in 
our hearts unto the Lord V 

“ ‘ Thee they sing with glory crown’d, 

We extol the slaughter’d Lamb ; 

Lower if our voices sound, 

Our subject is the same.’ 

“ Far be it from me to assert any thing positively on 
this subject; it is possible there may be latent powers 
in the human soul which never can be developed in 
this world, but which may, in a future state of exist¬ 
ence, give birth to new and endless enjoyments; for 
if this life be only ‘the bud of being,’ what finite 
mind can conceive the glories that await us, when 
we blossom with unfading beauty in the garden of 
Paradise ? 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


59 


“ 2d. Perfection may be considered in reference to 
its degrees. I do not like this term, as I am conscious 
it may be abused, but it is the best I can find to express 
my meaning; it implies the having all the ‘ fruits of the 
Spirit’ brought to such maturity, as to exclude every 
opposing principle, and every contrary temper.* A man 
may be perfect in the former sense, and imperfect in 
the latter : just as a child may be perfect in parts, and 
imperfect in degrees; he may have all the limbs, and 
so on, of a human being; but not the strength, the 
vigour, nor the intellectual endowments of a man. 
And thus a Christian, who has been recently ‘born of 
God, and just introduced into the glorious liberty of 
the gospel, may have all the graces of Christianity, and 
yet these may exist in imperfect degrees : for instance, 
every Christian possesses a confidence in God, a trust 
in his promises,- and a reliance upon his veracity; not 
the confidence of ignorance, nor of presumption, but 
the genuine offspring of experimental knowledge ; for 
‘ they that know thy name,’ saith David, ‘ will put their 
trust in thee.’ But this confidence, though perfect in 
its principle, is imperfect in its degree ; it is sometimes 
disturbed by doubts, molested by fears, or harassed by 
anxious cares; but when the soul has attained to ma¬ 
turity in Christian holiness, this confidence is perfect, 
and doubt, distrust, and fear, cease to exist. And 
though in reference to worldly things the Christian 
may walk ‘ in darkness, and have no light;’ the fig-tree 
may not blossom, nor fruit be in the vine ; friends may 
desert him, and foes meditate his ruin ; yet ‘ he shall 
not be afraid of evil tidings ; his heart is fixed, trusting f 
in the Lord ;’ hence he can say, with Job, ‘ though he 
slay me, yet will I trust in him ;’ or with the poet, 

* Instead of perfection of degrees , I would prefer as less liable to 
be misunderstood, perfection of character. 


60 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“ ‘ Though waves and storms go o’er my head, 

Though health, and strength, and friends be gone; 
Though joys be wither’d all, and dead; 

Though every comfort be withdrawn ; 

On this my steadfast soul relies, 

Father, thy mercy never dies.’ 

“ Every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ loves God, 
and gives the most indubitable evidence of that love, 
by keeping God’s commandments, and doing the things 
that please him. But this love, although perfect in its 
nature, is not in its degree ; there may be an undue 
attachment to the world, an improper fondness for the 
creature, or an inordinate degree of self-love ; but when 
the Christian has gone on ‘unto perfection,’ then he 
1 loves God with all his heart, and with all his soul, 
and with all his mind, and with all his strength, and 
his neighbour as himself.’ This love knows no rival; 
neither the seductions of sin, nor the lures of the world, 
nor the charms of the creature, can alienate the affec¬ 
tions from the sole object that has engrossed them ; for 
such a man, wealth has no value, pleasure no attrac¬ 
tion, honour no brilliance, and dignities no splendour: 
hence he adopts the language of the poet, 

“ ‘ All my treasure is above, 

All my riches is thy love ; 

Whom have I in heaven but thee 1 
Thou art all in all to me.’”* 

I shall close my quotations of Wesleyan authorities, 
with a statement of the doctrine, by the venerable 
Bishop Hedding :f 

“Brethren,—Among many other important ques- 

* Sermon on Heb. vi, 1. 

t This brief exposition of the doctrine of Christian perfection was de¬ 
livered, by request, in an address to the candidates for orders in the New- 
Jersey Conference, April, 1841, and subsequently published in the Chris¬ 
tian Advocate and Journa. in accordance with a vote of the conference. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


Gl 


tions, the following have been asked you, and you 
have answered them in the affirmative:—‘ Are you 
going on to perfection ? Do you expect to be made per¬ 
fect in love in this life ? Are you groaning after it V 

“It is important for you, as Christians, and as minis¬ 
ters, to have a thorough understanding of this great 
subject. The subject is Christian perfection, or being 
made perfect in love in this life. It is being delivered 
from sin, and filled with the love of God. The bre¬ 
thren ask me to state 4 the nature of justification, re¬ 
generation, and sanctification, and the difference 
between them as distinct works of grace.’ I under¬ 
stand justification to be a pardon of past sins ; and re¬ 
generation, which takes place at the same time, to be 
a change of heart, or of our moral nature. Regene¬ 
ration also, being the same as the new birth, is the 
beginning of sanctification, though not the completion 
of it, or not entire sanctification. Regeneration is the 
beginning of purification; entire sanctification is the 
finishing of that work. 

“ The difference between a justified soul who is not 
fully sanctified, and one fully sanctified, I understand 
to be this :— 

“ The first (if he does not backslide) is kept from 
voluntarily committing known sin; which is what is 
commonly meant in the New Testament by committing 
sin. But he yet finds in himself the remains of in- 
bred corruption, or original sin; such as pride, anger, 
envy, a feeling of hatred to an enemy, a rejoicing at a 
calamity which has fallen upon an enemy, &c. 

“ Now, in all this the regenerate soul does not act 
voluntarily, his choice is against all these evils; God 
has given him a new heart, which hates all these evils, 
and resists, and overcomes them, as soon as the mind 
perceives them. The regenerate soul wishes these 


62 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


evils were not in his heart, yet he has in himself no 
power to destroy them. Though the Christian does 
not feel guilty for this depravity as he would do if he 
had voluntarily broken the law of God, yet he is often 
grieved and afflicted, and reproved at a~ sight of this 
sinfulness of his nature. 

“ Though the soul in this state enjoys a degree of 
religion, yet it is conscious it is not what it ought to be, 
nor what it must be to be fit for heaven. 

“ It seems that the sinfulness of our nature, or ori¬ 
ginal sin, may remain in the new-born soul independ¬ 
ent of choice, and even against choice. 

“ The second, or the person fully sanctified, is 
cleansed from all these inward involuntary sins. 

“ He may be tempted by Satan, by men, and by his 
own bodily appetites, to commit sin, but his heart is 
free from these inward fires, which before his full 
sanctification were ready to fall in with temptation, 
and lead him into transgression. He may be tempted 
to be proud, to love the world, to be revengeful or 
angry, to hate an enemy, to wish him evil, or to re¬ 
joice at his calamity, but he feels none of these pas¬ 
sions in his heart; the Holy Ghost has cleansed him 
from all these pollutions of his nature. Thus it is 
that, being emptied of sin, the perfect Christian is filled 
with the love of God, even with that perfect love which 
casteth out fear. 

“ But is this sanctification instantaneous or gradual ? 
It is both. In some respects it is one, and in other 
respects it is the other. In a soul who does not back¬ 
slide, the work of sanctification goes on gradually till 
it is finished, and that event is instantaneous. Finish¬ 
ing the work is accomplished in an instant. Mr. Wes¬ 
ley s.ays something like this : ‘ A man may be some 
time dying, but there is an instant in which he dies.’ 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 63 

So in a Christian, sin may be some time dying, but 
there is an instant in which it dies; and that event is 
full sanctification. In some, the fact of its being 
finished in an instant is more apparent to the subject 
than it is in others. 

“ But how is this great work performed ? By the 
Holy Spirit—no other power can effect it: and this 
work of the Spirit is obtained only through the atone¬ 
ment, and through faith in that atonement. That faith 
which is the condition of this entire sanctification is 
exercised only by a penitent heart—a heart willing to 
part with all sin for ever, and determined to do the 
will of God in all things. Believe and pray for it—it 
is as important that you should experience this holy 
work as it is that the sinners to whom you preach 
should be converted. God is as able, willing, and 
ready to do this great work for you as he was to pardon 
your sins. Christ is able to save to the uttermost all 
that come to God through him. But what would be 
the fate of a soul born of the Spirit, but not fully sanc¬ 
tified, called to die in that state ? If he have not back¬ 
slidden he would go to heaven. Not that he is now fit 
for heaven, but Christ would fit him should he call him 
out of the world. Before his departure Christ would 
either accept his weak faith, or give him a degree of 
faith equal to his wants, and thus save his soul. This 
view is supported by the numerous promises in Scrip¬ 
ture of eternal salvation to all who die the children of 
God. Those promises to such as persevere and re¬ 
main the children of God, include all the work of 
grace necessary to fit them for heaven. But these 
views furnish no excuse for us to neglect seeking full 
sanctification now. If we were sure we should live 
twenty years, then experience full sanctification and 
die, there would be many and important reasons for us 


64 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


to seek that great blessing now, and so to believe as to 
experience it this day. With it we should be more 
happy, and more useful; and as we are changeable 
creatures, with this blessing we shall be more safe than 
we could be without it. But can a person possessing 
perfect love, perfectly keep God’s holy law, as angels 
do in heaven ? No; if he could, he would no longer 
need the atonement, any more than holy angels do. 
Yet through the atonement, he may acceptably keep 
the law. 

“ He loves God with all his heart, and his neighbour 
as himself; he acts in all things under the influence of 
that love ; and this is the end of the commandment, and 
the fulfilling of the law. And though this soul is free 
from what the Bible calls sin, yet he has infirmities and 
unavoidable failings growing out of the original fall, on 
account of which he ought to say, 

‘ Every moment, Lord, I need 
The merits of thy death 

forgive tfie my trespasses, &c. Unavoidable mistakes 
and failings are covered by the atonement; and through 
it his obedience is accepted.” 

I have been the more diffuse in my references, for 
the purpose of presenting all the phases of the subject 
as it is maintained by our standard writers. A clear 
statement of the doctrine of Christian perfection, I 
have long felt, is absolutely necessary at the outset; 
for without this we meet objections at every step which 
embarrass us, and involve in obscurity and doubt its 
plainest points. I have therefore selected those pas¬ 
sages from the writings of Mr. Wesley, Mr. Fletcher, 
and succeeding writers, which partake specifically of 
the nature of definitions, and especially such as give 
definitions which were rendered necessary by objec¬ 
tions founded upon false issues. After occupying so 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


65 


much time in drawing out the true Wesleyan theory, 
little more should be said in the present lecture. *1 
shall close by a consecutive statement of the proposi¬ 
tions which are couched under the language of my 
authorities. 

1. As to the nature of Christian perfection, it is clear, 
first , that our authors neither hold that it implies per¬ 
fection in knowledge, nor a perfect fulfilment of the 
requirements of the Adamic law, that is, legal perfec¬ 
tion. But, secondly , that it implies simply loving God 
with all the heart. 

2. That entire sanctification and Christian perfection 
are identical. 

3. That a state of sanctification, simply, as that state 
is referred to in the sacred writers, seldom implies all 
that we mean by Christian perfection; but when we 
design, by the term sanctification, to express the state 
of perfection contended for, we should qualify it by the 
word entire , or the like. 

4. That the term perfection, signifying the complete¬ 
ness of a thing in the attributes of its kind, considering 
its circumstances and the purposes of its being, admits 
of various degrees. Consequently perfection varies in 
its character according to the character of its subject; 
and may vary in its degrees, in subjects of the same 
class, according to the circumstances of the subject, 
and its particular destination. 

5. That by being saved from all sin in the present 
life, we mean being saved , first, from all outward sin— 
all violations of the requirements of the law of love 
which relate to our outward conduct: and, secondly , 
from all inward sin—all violations of the law of love 
which relate to the intellect, the sensibilities, and the 
will. 


i 


66 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


LECTURE IY. 

THEORIES-VARIOUSLY MODIFIED. 

“ We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” 1 Cor. ii, 6. 

Having, in the preceding lecture, presented the 
Wesleyan theory of perfection, I shall now proceed to 
give the views of leading theologians upon the subject 
in different periods of the church’s history, with such 
remarks and explanations as may be called for. And 
in the course of this investigation it will appear that 
the doctrine of evangelical perfection did not originate 
with Mr. Wesley. I do not say that the Wesleyan 
theory, in all its parts, is found in the productions of 
preceding writers. But I may say that the great ele¬ 
ments of the system have been developed, even from 
the early ages, in the same proportion in which vital 
Christianity has obtained. And hence these elements 
can be culled from the writings of the best divines of 
all ages since that of the apostles. 

In the selections I have made, I have not been care¬ 
ful always to find the word perfection —the thing is 
what I am after. And I find what I mean by Christian 
perfection often showing itself in the works of divines 
who condemn the name. I shall, first , present the 
views of several who do not seem to differ in their 
leading principles from those of our standards ; only 
not having treated the subject controversially, or not 
having adjusted it to other theological questions 
which have at different periods agitated the church, 
they have not set forth their views so much in detail 
I begin with the apostolic fathers. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


67 


“ He that hath the love that is in Christ, let him 
keep the commandments of Christ. Who can declare 
the bond of the love of God ? Who is sufficient worthily 
to express the magnificence of its beauty ? The height 
to which love exalts us cannot be spoken. Love unites 
us to God. Love covereth a multitude of sins. Love 
is long-suffering; yea, beareth all things. There is 
nothing mean in love, there is nothing haughty. Love 
has no schism, is not seditious. Love does all things 
in unity. By love were all the elect of God made per¬ 
fect. Without love, nothing is acceptable to God. Ye 
see, beloved, how great and wonderful a thing love is, 
and that no words can declare its perfection. Who, 
then, is sufficient to be found therein ? who but they to 
whom God vouchsafes to teach it ? Let us, therefore, 
beseech him that we may be worthy thereof, that we 
may live in love, unblameable, without respect of per¬ 
sons. All the generations from Adam unto this day 
are passed away: but those who were made perfect 
in love are in the region of the just, and shall appear 
in glory at the visitation of the kingdom of Christ.”— 
St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians. 

“ Nothing is better than peace, whereby all war is 
destroyed, both of things in heaven and things on earth. 
Nothing of this is hid from you, if ye have perfect faith 
in Jesus Christ, and love, which are the beginning and 
the end of life: faith is the beginning, love the end; 
and both being joined in one, are of God. All other 
things pertaining to perfect holiness follow. For no 
man that hath faith sinneth; and none that hath love 
hateth any man.”— St. Ignatius's Epistle to the Ephe¬ 
sians. 

Irenseus, a celebrated father of the second century, 
says :—“ The apostle, explaining himself in his First 
Epistle to the Thessalonians, chap, v, exhibited the 


68 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


perfect and spiritual salvation of man, saying, ‘ But & 
God of peace sanctify you perfectly; that your s 1, 
body, and spirit may be preserved without fault to the 
coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ How then, indeed, 
did he have the cause in these three, (that is, to pray 
for the entire and perfect preservation of soul, body, 
and spirit, to the coming of the Lord,) unless he knew 
the common salvation of these was the renovation of 
the whole three ? Wherefore he calls those perfect 
who present the three faultless to the Lord. There¬ 
fore those are perfect who have the spirit and perse¬ 
verance of God, and have preserved their souls and 
bodies without fault.”* 

And Clemens Alexandrinus, of the latter part of the 
second century and the beginning of the third, says :— 
“ I find that the term ‘perfect’ is understood in various 
senses, as the individual acts rightly in each kind of 
virtue.”! 

But of all the fathers, Macarius, the Egyptian, writes 
most specifically and consistently upon the subject. 
He, in his Homilies, treats the subject of set purpose.}; 
He says :—“ One that is rich in grace, at all times, 
by night and by day, continues in a perfect state, 
free and pure, ever captivated with love, and elevated 
to God.”—“In like manner Christians, though out¬ 
wardly they are tempted; yet inwardly are they filled 
with the divine nature, and so nothing injured. These 
degrees, if any man attain to, he is come to the perfect 
love of Christ, and to the fulness of the Godhead.” 

* Lib. v. f Stormatum, book iv. 

% Macarius was a member of the council of Nice in 325. He was 
a celebrated hermit, and said to be a disciple of St. Anthony ; was born 
of poor parents in 301. He passed sixty years in a monastery on mount 
Sceta, and died about the year 391. His Homilies were printed at 
Paris in 1526, folio, and at Leipsic, 1698.— Gorton's Biog. Diet . 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


(39 


“As.iron, or lead, or gold, or silver, when cast into 
the fire, is freed from that hard consistency which is 
natural to it, being changed into softness, and, so long 
as it continues in the fire, is still dissolved from its 
native hardness : after the same manner the soul that 
has renounced the world, and fixed its desires only upon 
the Lord, and hath received that heavenly fire of the 
Godhead, and of the love of the Spirit, is disentangled 
from all love of the world, and set free from all the 
corruption of the affections ; it turns all things out of 
itself, and is changed from the hardness of sin, and 
melted down in a fervent and unspeakable love for that 
heavenly Bridegroom alone, whom it has received 
For when the soul is thoroughly cleansed from all its 
corrupt affections, and is united by an ineffable com¬ 
munion to the Spirit, the Comforter, and is thoroughly 
mixed with the Spirit, and is become spirit itself; then 
it is all light, all eye, all spirit, all joy, all rest, all glad¬ 
ness, all love, all bowels, all goodness and clemency. 
As a stone in the bottom of the sea is everywhere sur¬ 
rounded by water, so are these everywhere drenched 
with the Holy Spirit, and made like unto Christ him¬ 
self, possessing unalterably within themselves the vir¬ 
tues of the power of the Spirit; being blameless within 
and without, and spotless, and pure ; for being brought 
to perfection by the Spirit, how is it possible that they 
should outwardly produce the fruits of sin ? Sin is 
rooted out by the coming of the Holy Spirit, and man 
receives the original formation of Adam in his purity. 
Through the power of the Spirit, he comes up to the 
first Adam ; yea, is made greater than him.” 

“ What, then, is that 4 perfect will of God’ to which 
the apostle calls and exhorts every one of us to attain ? 
It is perfect purity from sin, freedom from all shameful 
passions, and the assumption of perfect virtue ; that is, 


70 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the purification of the heart by the plenary and* experi¬ 
mental communio^ of the perfect and divine Spirit. 
To those who say that it is impossible to attain to 
perfection, and the final and complete subjugation of 
the passions, or to acquire a full participation of the 
good Spirit, we must oppose the testimony of the divine 
Scriptures; and prove to them that they are ignorant, 
and speak both falsely and presumptuously.”* 

These extracts may be considered as fair specimens 
of the opinions propagated by the orthodox fathers until 
the controversy arose between Pelagius and Augustine. 
This controversy, as it involved the subject of perfec¬ 
tion, will be noticed hereafter. 

I shall next present the views of several learned 
and pious divines of modern times, the first of whom 
lived just before the period of the Reformation. 

Wickliffe says :—“ To be turned from the world, is 
to set at naught, and to put out of mind, all likings, 
joys, and mirths thereof, and to suffer meekly all bit¬ 
terness, slanders, and troubles thereof, for the love of 
Christ; and to leave all occupations unlawful and un¬ 
profitable to the soul, so that man’s will and thought 
be dead to seek any thing that the world seeketh and 
loveth. Therefore the prophet speaketh in the person 
of the soul’s perfectly turning to God, saying, Mine 
eyes, that is, my thought and intent, shall ever be to 
God. For he shall draw my feet, that is, my soul and 
my affections, out of the snare, and the net of the love 
of this world. He that is truly turned to God, fleeth 
from vices, beholdeth not the solaces or comforts of 
this world ; but setteth his mind so steadfastly on God, 
that he well nigh forgetteth all outward things; he 

* We have a portion of the Homilies of Macarius in Wesley’s Chris¬ 
tian Library, vol. xviii. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


71 


gathereth himself all within ; he is reared up wholly 
into Christ.”* 

Erasmus, on Matt, v, 8, says:—“ How much more 
blessed be they who, being delivered from blindness 
of the mynde, have the gift inwardly to see God. 
As the sunne is to cleare eyes, so is God to pure and 
cleane mindes. As matter of skumme or a wcbbe is 
to the eyes, so is God to pure and clean myndes. 
Therefore blessed be they, whose heart is pure and 
clean from all filthyness. For they shall have this 
gift, which is more to be desired than all the pleasures 
of the world : they shall see God.”t 

King Edward VI., who died while yet a youth, was 
the most pious prince of modern times. In his Primer # 
we have the following prayer “for a pure and clean 
heart—“ The heart of man naturally is corrupt and 
unsearchable through the multitude of sins, which lie 
buried in it, insomuch that no man is able to say, My 
heart is clean, and I am clear from sin. Remove from 
me, therefore, O heavenly Father, my corrupt, sinful, 
stony, stubborn, and unfaithful heart. Create in me a 
clean heart, free from all noisome and ungodly thoughts. 
Breathe into my heart, by thy Holy Spirit, godly and 
spiritual motions ; that out of the good treasure of the 
heart I may bring forth good things, unto the praise 
and glory of thy name. Amen.”J 

A similar prayer, composed by the reformers, is 
still in use :—“ Cleanse thou the thoughts of my heart 

* Of Perfect Life—Writings of Rev. and learned John Wickliffe : 
one of the volumes of the English reformers published by the Religious 
Tract Society. 

t Paraphrase. This paraphrase was translated by order of Henry 
VIII. into English, and ordered to be placed in the churfches. My 
copy is in black letter, and may be the original edition ; but this I 
cannot certainly determine, as the title-page is wanting, 
t Writings of Edward VI., p. 94. 


72 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that I may per¬ 
fectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name.”* 
The learned Cudworth says:—“ The end of the 
gospel is life and perfection; it is a divine nature; it 
is a godlike frame and disposition of spirit; it is to 
make us partakers of the image of God in righteous 
ness and true holiness : grace is holiness militant; 
holiness encumbered with many enemies and difficul¬ 
ties, which it still fights against, and manfully quits 
itself of: and glory is nothing but holiness triumphant; 
holiness with a palm of victory in her hand, and a crown 
upon her head. God himself cannot make me happy, 
if he be only without me ; unless he give a participa¬ 
tion of himself and his own likeness unto my soul. I 
mean by holiness, nothing else but God stamped and 
printed upon my soul. True holiness is always breath¬ 
ing upward, and fluttering toward heaven, striving to 
embosom itself with God; and it will at last undoubt¬ 
edly be conjoined with him ; no dismal shades of dark¬ 
ness can possibly stop it in its course. We do but 
deceive ourselves with names ; hell is nothing but the 
orb of sin and wickedness, or else that hemisphere of 
darkness in which all evil moves; and heaven js the 
opposite hemisphere of light, the bright orb of truth, 
holiness, and goodness : and we actually in this life 
instate ourselves in the possession of one or other of 
them. There be some that dishearten us in our spi¬ 
ritual warfare, and would make us let our weapons fall 
out of our hands, by working in us a despair of victory. 
There be some evil spies that weaken the hands and 
hearts of the children of Israel; and bring an ill report 
upon that land that we are to conquer, telling of nothing 
but strange giants, the sons of Anak there, that we 
shall never be able to overcome. The Amalekites, say 

* Communion Service. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


73 


they, dwell in the south; theHittites, Jebusites, Amor- 
ites, in the mountains; and the Canaanites by the sea 
coast; huge armies of tall invincible lusts: we shall 
never be able to go against them, we shall never be 
able to prevail against our corruptions. Hearken not 
unto them, I beseech you, but hear what Caleb and 
Joshua say: 4 Let us go up at once and possess it; 
for we are able to overcome them:’ not by our own 
strength, but by the power of the Lord of hosts. There 
arc indeed sons of Anak there, there are mighty giant¬ 
like lusts, that we are to grapple with ; nay, there are 
principalities and powers, too, that we are to oppose; 
but the great Michael, the Captain of the Lord’s host, 
is with us ; he commands in chief for us, and we need 
not be dismayed. 4 Understand, therefore, this day, 
that the Lord thy God is he which goeth before thee ; 
as a consuming fire, he shall destroy these enemies, 
and bring them down before thy face.’ If thou wilt be 
faithful to him, and put thy trust in him, 4 as the fire 
consumeth the stubble, and as the flame burneth up 
the chaff,’ so will he destroy thy lusts in thee : 4 their 
root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go 
up as the dust.’”* 

Rev. John Arndt thus speaks of the several stages 
of the Christian life :— 44 As there are different stages 
and degrees of age and maturity in the natural life ; so 
there are also in the spiritual. It has its first founda¬ 
tion in sincere repentance , by which a man sets him¬ 
self heartily to amend his life. This is succeeded by 
a greater illumination , which is a kind of middle stage. 
Here, by contemplation, prayer, and bearing the cross, 
a man is daily improving in grace, and growing up to 
perfection. The last and most perfect state is that 
which consists in a most firm union , which is founded 

* Cudworth's Sermon before the House of Commons. 


74 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


in, and cemented by, pure love. This is that state 
which St. Paul calls, ‘ the perfect man,’ and ‘ the 
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,’ Eph. 
iv, 13. 

“ Behold, in this mortification consists the true per - 
fection of the Christian life. Perfection is the deny¬ 
ing of our own will; the contempt of the pleasures and 
profits of this life; the acknowledging our own vile¬ 
ness ; constant resignation to the will of God, and un¬ 
wearied love for our neighbour. In a word, it is that 
love which thinks of nothing, seeks nothing, desires 
nothing, but God. I beg the divine grace, both upon 
thee and me, that it may please him to begin, strength¬ 
en, and perfect his good work in us, to the praise and 
glory of God. Amen !” 

Dr. Lucas* has left a treatise on Religious Perfec¬ 
tion , which contains a theory somewhat peculiar, and 
which is of sufficient importance to have a place here. 

“ Religion is nothing else but the purifying and re¬ 
fining nature by grace, the raising a.nd exalting our 
faculties and capacities by wisdom and virtue. Reli¬ 
gious perfection, therefore, is nothing else but the 
moral accomplishment of human nature; such a ma¬ 
turity of virtue as man in this life is capable of; con¬ 
version begins, perfection consummates the habit of 
righteousness : in the one, religion is, as it were, in its 
infancy ; in the other, in its strength and manhood ; so 
that perfection, in short, is nothing else but a ripe and 
settled habit of true holiness. According to this notion 
of religious perfection, he is a perfect man whose mind 
is pure and vigorous, and his body tame and obsequi- 

* The treatise on Religious Perfection , which I quote, constitutes the 
third part of his Inquiry after Happiness ; but being perfect in itself, is 
also published separately. Mr. Wesley has made a large “extract” 
from the Inquiry in his Christian Library, which makes up the principal 
part of the twenty-fourth volume of that work. The author died in 1715 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


75 


olis ; whose faith is firm and steady, his love ardent 
and exalted, and his hope full of assurance ; whose 
religion has in it that ardour and constancy, and his 
soul that tranquillity and pleasure, which bespeaks him 
a child of the light, and of the day, a partaker of the 
divine nature , and raised above the corruption which 
is in the world through lust.” 

From this, it would seem, our author would require a 
long time for the acquisition of the settled habit which, 
constitutes religious perfection; but he subsequently 
alleges that this habit may be infused by the Spirit of 
God. Thus he proceeds :—“ The doctrine of infused 
habits has been much ridiculed and exposed, as absurd, 
by some men ; and I must confess, if it be essential to 
a habit, to be acquired by length of time, and repetition 
of the same acts, then an infused habit is a very odd 
expression. But why God cannot produce in us those 
strong dispositions to virtue in a moment, which are 
ordinarily produced by time; or why we may not ascribe 
as much efficacy to infused grace, as philosophers are 
wont to do to repeated acts, I cannot see. Nor -can I 
see why such dispositions, when infused, may not be 
called habits, if they have all the properties and effects 
of an habit.”f 

Dr. Bates has a chapter on “the perfection of holi¬ 
ness,” which, though somewhat exceptionable, yet 
is generally excellent, and as it constitutes something 
like a system, I shall give all his main positions. 

“ I now come to discourse of the perfection of holi¬ 
ness, the sublime object and aim of the desires and 
endeavours of sincere Christians. I shall premise— 
There is a threefold perfection of holiness spoken of 
in Scripture : the perfection of innocence, the perfec 
tion of grace, and the perfection of glory. 

* See Religious Perfection, pp. 1-17. + Ibid., p. 37. 


76 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“ 1. The perfection of innocence. God made man 
upright, in the bright image of his holiness. The ex¬ 
cellency of the efficient cause infers the excellency of 
the effect; and the final cause was for‘his own glory, 
and man’s happiness, in order to which he was endowed 
with those moral perfections which qualified him to 
obtain that end. There was an exact regularity in all 
his faculties: the enlightened mind directed the will, 
.the will commanded the affections, the affections ruled 
the senses. He had power to stand,'but was free to 
fall: with his original perfection there was a possibi¬ 
lity of sinning and dying. The eyes of his mind were 
clear, discovering his duty and felicity; and the assist¬ 
ing grace of God was like the sun shining in the air 
to actuate his visive faculty; but he wilfully shut his 
eye, and fell from that height of happiness into a pit 
without a bottom. 

“ 2. The perfection of grace. This, in the language 
of Scripture, signifies uprightness and sincerity, and 
is attributed to the saints in several respects, which J 
will particularly consider. 

“ 3. The perfection of glory. This implies a union 
of all excellences in a sovereign degree. The church 
in the present state is compared to the moon, that re¬ 
ceives light from the sun in half its globe, but in the 
next state will be filled with light as a ball of crystal 
penetrated by the sun-beams. The church shall be 
glorious in holiness, without ‘ spot, or wrinkle, or any 
such thing,’ Eph. v, 27. Natural righteousness was 
of short continuance, as nature left to itself always is: 
but the supernatural state is not only undefiled, but 
fades not away. 1 Pet. i, 4. The perfection of para¬ 
dise was frail, for man in his best state was changing: 
from this root his ruin sprang: but the perfection of 
heaven is immutable, for there God is all in all. 1 Cor 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


77 


xv, 28. His influxive presence is the productive and 
conservative cause of their holiness and blessedness. 

“ I will now consider the perfection of grace that is 
attributed to the saints in the present state. 

“ 1. There is an essential perfection, that consists 
in the unchangeable nature of things, and is absolutely 
requisite to the kind. A gradual perfection belongs to 
individuals, and is various : all gold is not refined to 
the same degree and height of purity: but true gold, 
though in the lowest degree of fineness, will endure 
the furnace and the touchstone, and by that trial is 
discerned from counterfeit metal. There are different 
degrees of active heat in fire : sometimes it flames, but 
always burns, if fed with combustible matter. 

“ Now the essence of true holiness consists in a 
conformity to the nature and will of God, whereby a 
saint is distinguished from the unrenewed world, and 
is not actuated by their principles and precepts, not * 
governed by their maxims and customs. 

“ There are different degrees of holiness in the saints, 
but sincerity is inseparable from the being of it.” 

I omit his illustrations, and proceed to his next position. 

“ 2. There is an integral perfection of holiness : that 
is, an entire union of all those sanctifying graces of 
which the image of God consists. The new creature 
in its forming is not like the effects of art, but the 
living productions of nature. A sculptor, in making a 
statue of marble, finishes the head, when the other part 
is but rude stone ; but all the parts of a child are grad¬ 
ually formed together, till the body is complete. The 
Holy Spirit, in renewing a man, infuses a universal 
habit of holiness, that is comprehensive of all the va¬ 
riety of graces to be exercised in the life of a Christian. 
As the corrupt nature, styled the old man, is complete 
in its earthly members, all the lusts of the flesh, both 


78 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


of the desiring and angry appetite, and disposes, with¬ 
out the corrective of restraining grace, the natural man 
to yield to all temptations: to be fierce with the con¬ 
tentious, licentious with the dissolute, intemperate with 
the drunkard, lascivious with the impure, and impious 
■with the scorners of religion—so the divine nature, 
styled the new man, is complete in all spiritual graces, 
and inclines and enables the sanctified to do every good 
work. ‘ The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, 
long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, 
temperance,’ Gal. v. 22, 23. Although they are dis¬ 
tinguished in their activity, and particular objects, yet 
they always are joined in the same subject, and con¬ 
centre in God, who is immutably holy and one. They 
are mixed in their exercise without confusion. As in 
a chorus the variety of voices is harmonious and con¬ 
spiring ; so in spiritual graces, according.to the degrees 
of their perfection, such is the degree of their union.” 
I here omit the author’s Scripture proofs and illustrations. 

“ 3. There is a comparative perfection: this in 
Scripture is intellectual or moral. 

“(1.) Intellectual perfection. The apostle excites 
the Hebrews, ‘Wherefore, leaving the doctrine of'the 
beginning of Christ, let us go on to perfection,’ Heb. 
vi, 1, to more eminent degrees in the knowledge of the 
gospel, both of the supernatural doctrines of the gospel, 
and the duties contained in it. Of the first the apostle 
is to be understood, ‘We speak wisdom among those 
that are perfect,’ 1 Cor. ii, 6 that is, declare divine 
mysteries to those who are prepared to ^receive them. 

“ (2.) Moral perfection is evident by a threefold 
comparison:—1. Of the saints with visible sinners. 
2. Of the saints among themselves. 3. Of some emi¬ 
nent acts of grace, with lower acts in the same kind. 

“[!.] The comparison of saints with visible smners 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


79 


makes them appear as perfect. There is a mixture of 
principles in the best [of the merely justified] of flesh and 
spirit, inherent corruption, and infused grace, and the 
operations flowing from them accordingly are mixed. 
But as one who has not the brightest colours of white 
and red in the complexion appears an excellent beauty 
set off by the presence of a blackamoor, so the beauty 
of holiness in a saint, though mixed with blemishes, 
appears complete when compared with the foul de¬ 
formity of sinners. Thus the opposition between 
them is expressed, ‘ He destroys the perfect and the 
wicked,’ Job ix, 22. It is recorded of Noah, that 
he was a ‘just man, and perfect in his generations,’ 
Gen. vi, 9, in an age when wickedness reigned, 
when chastity was expelled from the number of 
virtues—when impiety was arrived at the highest 
pitch, and the deluge was necessary to purge the 
world from such sinners : then the sanctity and piety 
of Noah shined as brightness issues from the stars. 
He appeared perfectly good, compared with the pro¬ 
digiously bad. 

“ [2.] In comparing the saints among themselves, 
some are styled perfect. There are different degrees 
among sinners: some are so disposed to wickedness, 
that they may be denominated from as many vices that 
possess their souls, as the evil spirit, in the man spoken 
of in the gospel, answered, his name was Legion, from 
the number of devils that possessed him. They drive 
through all the degrees of sin so violently and furiously, 
that, compared to them, other sinners seem innocent, 
and are far less obnoxious to judgment. 

“ Thus there are singular saints whose graces are 
so conspicuous and convincing, and a universal holi¬ 
ness appears in their conversation, which makes them 
venerable among the vicious. Their presence will re- 


80 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


strain the dissolute from excesses either in words or 
actions, as effectually as a magistrate by the terror of 
his power. As to other saints, though sincere, yet 
there is such a mixture of shades and lights in their 
actions, that they are in low esteem. Compare meek 
Moses with the passionate prophet Jonah, who justified 
his anger to the face of God himself, * I do well to be 
angry, even unto death,’ Jonah iv, 9. We read of 
Moses, that he was the meekest man upon the face 
of the earth. Num. xii, 3. Of this there is recorded 
a very eminent effect and evidence. When Aaron 
and Miriam had contumeliously and seditiously spoke 
against him, as if he had usurped undue authority, 
‘ Hath the Lord only spoken by Moses ? hath he not 
also spoken by us?’ verse 2, he might by a sharp 
reply have confounded them, but he was silent. Seve¬ 
ral circumstances concur to heighten the value of his 
victory over himself. There was a double offence, 
and violation of the respects due to the dignity of his 
person, and the nearness of the relation. This accusa¬ 
tion was public before the congregation of Israel: in 
the heat of the contention, when there is a great dis¬ 
position to be fired by anger—when the silent and 
patient bearing the indignity might be interpreted as a 
conviction of his guilt—yet he calmly endured their 
false charge. How great is the disparity betweer 
Moses and Jonah! 

“ [3.] In comparing some raised acts of grace with 
lower in the same kind, there is a perfection attributed 
to them. As it is in diamonds, many small ones are 
not of equal value with one great one, though of equal 
weight with it: so one act of piety, of faith, of charity, 
of self-denial, may, for its rareness, exemplariness, and 
efficacy, have such a divine degree of worth in it, that it 
far excels many less illustrious effects of those graces.” 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


81 


Here the cauthor introduces Abraham offering up his son 
Isaac, where “ many circumstances, with respect to na¬ 
ture and grace, increased the difficulty of obedience 
—and going out “not knowing whither he went;" 
and then the “ self-denial of Moses as perfect and ad¬ 
mirable in its kind and then comes to Job. 

“ The patience of Job is as rare an instance, who 
was exposed to all the cruelty and arts of the tempter 
to overcome him. If we consider the nature of his 
afflictions, and their immediate succession like waves 
the sea—that he was suddenly and unexpectedly 
stripped of his estate, deprived of his child-ren, and his 
body was covered with loathsome and painful ulcers, 
that Satan was confident his misery would so exaspe¬ 
rate his spirit, that he would blaspheme God to his 
face—yet he blessed him with the most humble reve¬ 
rence and resigned submission to his sovereign will. 
Add another consideration : when his wife, that should 
have been a comforter, insulted over him, and became 
a tempter, he repelled her with holy zeal and constancy. 
The tempter, neither by assaults on his body, nor by 
treachery in his wife, could prevail. In him patience 
had its perfect work. James i, 4. It is recorded as 
the most celebrated instance in that kind: 4 You have 
heard of the patience of Job, and seen the end of the 
Lord,’ James v, 11. I shall only add the example of 
the three Hebrew martyrs, who, when the proud and 
cruel king commanded them to bow to the golden idol, 
or threatened to cast them into the burning furnace, 
with unshaken courage exposed themselves to his fury 
to preserve their integrity. In them perfect love cast 
out fear. 

“ 4. There is a relative perfection of holiness accord¬ 
ing to the several conditions of the saints in this life. 
As in a garden, there are trees that produce different 


82 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


fruits, and of different degrees of goodness—the vine, 
the fig-tree, the apple-tree : if an apple-tree produce 
the best fruits in its kind, though not equal to the fruit 
of the vine, it is perfectly good. Thus in the world 
there are several conditions of life among men : some 
are in places of dignity and superiority; others of sub¬ 
jection and service. A servant that is faithful and dili¬ 
gent, adorns the gospel, Tit. ii, 10, and excels in that 
relation, and is equally accepted of God, as others in 
a higher order. He that gained two talents was es¬ 
teemed as faithful as he that gained five, because the 
profit resulting from the improvement was in propor¬ 
tion to the stock intrusted with him. 

“ There is a perfection relative to the various spi¬ 
ritual states of Christians here. St. John addresses his 
counsel to Christians under several titles, to children, 
to young men, and fathers, with respect to their differ¬ 
ent ages in Christianity. A child is perfect, in the 
quality of a child, when he has the stature, the strength, 
the understanding that is becoming his age, though he 
is distant from that complete state to which he will 
arrive in his mature age. A young man has the per¬ 
fection proper to his age. A new convert that has such 
degrees of knowledge and holiness as are suitable to 
the means and his time of advancement by them, is 
esteemed complete in that state of grace. Some are 
entered into the school of heaven, and are in the first 
lessons of Christianity; others have made higher pro¬ 
gress in it, to the fulness of the stature. Eph. iv, 13. 

“ Beyond the perfection attainable here, there is an 
absolute perfection of holiness in the extent of its parts, 
and intention of degrees. It is our present duty to 
aspire and endeavour after this, but attained onlv in 
heaven, where every saint is renewed into the perfect 
image of God, and made glorious in holiness, the great 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


S3 


end of our Saviour’s love in dying for us. By grada¬ 
tions Christians ascend to that consummate state, the 
period of perfection.”* 

Bishop Taylor says :—“ We must turn from all our 
evil ways, leaving no sin unmortified: that is one 
measure of perfection ; it is a perfect conversion. We 
must have charity: that is another perfection; it is a 
perfect grace. We must be ready to part with all for 
conscience’ sake,, and to die for Christ: that is perfect 
obedience, and the most perfect love. We must con¬ 
form to the divine will in doing and suffering: that is 
perfect patience. We must live in all holy conversa¬ 
tion and godliness : that is a perfect state. We must 
ever be ^going forward, and growing in godliness, that 
so we may be perfect men in Christ Jesus. And we 
must persevere unto the end: that is perfection, and 
the crown of all the rest. If any thing less than this 
were intended, it cannot be told'how the gospel should 
be a holy institution, or that God should require of us 
to live a holy life ; but if any thing more than this were 
intended, it is impossible but all mankind should perish. 
Like to this is toto corde , loving and serving God with 
all our heart, and with all our strength. That this is 
possible, is folly to deny. For he that saith he cannot 
do a thing with all his strength, that is, that he cannot 
do what he can do, knows not what he says ; and yet 
to do this is the highest measure and sublimity of per¬ 
fection, and of keeping the commandments.” 

The learned John Goodwin says :—“ That it is a 
duty lying upon all men to strive after that which the 
Scripture calleth perfection ; and, consequently, to ex¬ 
ercise themselves in such things which are proper to 
invest them with such a capacity as we speak of, to 
qualify them for the high places in the world to come, 

* Spiritual Perfection, pp. 86 106 


84 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


is of easy demonstration and proof, both from the 
Scripture and otherwise. ‘ Be you therefore perfect, 
as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ It might be trans¬ 
lated more emphatically, ‘ You shall therefore be per¬ 
fect for so the future tense in the indicative mood is 
many times used, instead of the imperative, only with 
the greater seriousness and weight. As he that enjoin- 
eth, or commandeth, when he would signify and express 
his authority to the height, he doth not simply say unto 
him that he would have him to do a thing, Do this, or 
that, but he saith unto him, You shall do it, or, You 
must do it. So here, You shall be perfect, as your 
Father which is in heaven is perfect; as if he should 
say, I impose it upon you as a matter of sovereign 
concernment, both unto me and to yourselves, that you 
give out yourselves to the utmost in striving to imitate 
the perfection of your heavenly Father, and to be as 
absolute in all things appertaining unto you to do, as 
he is in all things that are honourable and proper for 
so great a majesty to do.”* 

Mr. Norris says:—“Heaven is but a state of the 
most perfect and consummated love ; and therefore the 
best thing we can practise on earth is to tune our hearts 
to this divine strain; to set them as high as we can ; 
for surely the best preparation for love must be love 
itself. But whatever other qualifications are requisite, 
a heart once truly touched with this divine passion can¬ 
not long want them. Love will draw along after it all 
other virtues, will perfect and improve them, and will 
at least hide those faults of them which it cannot cor¬ 
rect. For this is that universal excellency which sup¬ 
plies the defects of other works, but which, if wanting, 
nothing else can supply or compound for. Neither 
tongues, nor prophecy, nor knowledge, nor faith, nor 
* On being filled with the Spirit. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


85 


alms, nor even martyrdom itself, signify any thing with¬ 
out charity. The heart is the sacrifice that God de¬ 
mands ; and unless that be offered, the richest oblation 
will find no acceptance. Other gifts and graces, whe¬ 
ther intellectual or moral, come indeed from heaven, 
but they often leave us upon earth. Love only elevates 
us up thither, and is able to unite us to God. By faith 
we live upon God; by obedience we live to him; but 
it is by love alone that we live in him. And how pure 
and chaste must that soul be that is thoroughly purged 
of all created loves, and in whom the love of God reigns 
absolute and unrivalled, without any mixture or compe¬ 
tition ! How secure must he needs be'from sin, when 
he has not that in him which may betray him to it! 
The tempter may come, but he will find nothing in him 
to take hold of; the world may spread round about him 
a poisonous breath, but it will not hurt him ; the very 
cleanness of his constitution will guard him from the 
infection. He has but one love at all in his heart, and 
that is for God; and how can he, that loves nothing 
but God, be tempted to transgress against him, when 
he has nothing to separate him from him, and all that 
is necessary, perhaps all that is possible, to unite him 
to him ? What is there that should tempt such a man 
to sin; and what temptation is there that he has not to 
incite him to all goodness; and what a wonderful pro¬ 
gress must he needs make in it ? Whither will not the 
entire love of God carry him ; and to what degrees of 
Christian perfection will he not aspire, under the con¬ 
duct of so divine, so omnipotent a principle ?”* 

Dr. Worthington says :—“ Various have been the 
disputes which, from St. Austin’s days to the present 
time, have been agitated between several sects and 
denominations of Christians concerning perfection, and 
* On the Love of God. 


86 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the attainableness of it; the chief ground of which I 
take to have been the supposition, that human nature is 
not generally capable of rising above its present level 
And therefore those who have formed the highest no¬ 
tion of perfection, have pretended most to it, have most 
strongly recommended it to others, and pleaded for the 
attainableness of it, have met with so little success; 
but have generally been looked upon as no better than 
enthusiasts, and their labours have either tended to 
make others such, or have been received with coldness 
and indifference, if not rejected with contempt. And, 
indeed, while we suppose the present degeneracy of 
human nature to be invincible, we cannot form any* 
notion of human perfection but what necessarily in¬ 
cludes a contradiction in it; or if we understand it in 
its just sense and full import, we must, by the suppo¬ 
sition, give up the attainableness of it. So that all talk 
about perfection must, on this supposition, be absurd 
and idle, and all pretences to it must become airy and 
chimerical. But if, on the one hand, we suppose that 
nature shall, by degrees, be so refined by grace, as at 
length to be fully recovered of its present disorders; 
then all difficulties immediately vanish, and we may 
easily apprehend what is meant by Christian perfection 
in its full extent; this being but another word for the 
recovery of the original perfection of our nature, to 
which, when it is arrived at its full height, I conceive 
it will be in no respect inferior. That human nature 
shall in this life arrive at such a complete state of per¬ 
fection as this, besides what has been already observed, 
may be further argued from the consequences of the 
opposite opinion. For I conceive, that the doctrine of 
the impossibility of attaining perfection, and freedom 
from sin, is injurious to our Saviour Christ, derogates 
from the power and virtue of his sacrifice, and renders 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


S7 


his mission, as to the main end of it, in a great measure 
ineffectual.”* 

Robert Barclay states the views of the Society of 
Friends as follows :—“ In whom this holy and pure 
birth is fully brought forth, the body of death and sin 
comes to be crucified and removed, and their hearts 
united and subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any 
suggestion or temptation of the evil one, but to be free 
from actual sinning, and transgressing of the law of 
God, and in that respect perfect. Yet doth this per¬ 
fection still admit of a growth; and there remaineth a 
possibility of sinning, where the mind doth not most 
diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord.”f 

All these, and many other authors, assert the general 
doctrine of Christian perfection ; and, in the main, 
they embrace under this general notion precisely 
what we consider as belonging to it. On some points, 
however, of more*or less importance, several of them 
fail to meet our views. Dr. Lucas embraces in his 
view of a habit of righteousness all that we understand 
by Christian perfection. Dr. Bates fails in not pre¬ 
senting the proper standard of Christian perfection. 
We may admit his views of comparative perfection , 
provided we still maintain an infallible standard of 
holiness erected in the gospel, conformity to which, 
independent of the practice of Christians in general, 
constitutes the perfection of Christian character in the 
view of God. The term perfection is used, occasion¬ 
ally, in a modified sense, for a state above the ordinary 
grade of piety, where it does not imply all that we 
mean by Christian perfection, or all that it generally 
implies. Such passages we do not use as proof texts 
in this discussion. 

' * Worthington on Redemption. 

t Neal’s History of the Puritans, Appendix, p. 573. 


88 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


LECTURE V. 

CONTROVERSIES UPON THE SUBJECT OF CHRISTIAN PER¬ 
FECTION. 

“ Prove all things : hold fast that which is good.” 1 Thess. v, 21. 

The conflict between the two great doctrinal systems 
called Pelagianism and Augustinism commenced in 
the early part of the fifth century. These systems 
divided upon the subjects of original sin , free will , 
grace, and predestination. Upon these subjects Au¬ 
gustine, bishop of Hyppo, in Africa, -entertained views 
generally consistent and sober, until brought into con¬ 
flict with Pelagius and Caelestius, two shrewd and 
speculating monks from the British isle. The contro¬ 
versy was prosecuted with great heat on both sides, 
and unfortunately resulted in planting the seeds of two 
classes of errors, about equally injurious to the true 
interests of the church. 

The views of Pelagius and Augustine on original sin 
are thus stated in juxtaposition by Professor Wiggers. 
The Pelagian theory is embraced in the following three 
propositions:— 

“ h A propagation of sin by generation, is by no 
means to be admitted. This physical propagation of 
sin can be admitted only when we grant the propaga¬ 
tion of the soul by generation. But this is an heretical 
error. Consequently there is no original sin; and no¬ 
thing in the moral nature of man has been corrupted 
by Adam’s sin.” 

“ 2. Adam’s transgression was imputed to himself, 
but not to his posterity. A reckoning of Adam’s sin 
as that of his posterity, would conflict with the divine 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 89 

rectitude. Hence bodily death is no punishment of 
Adam’s imputed sin, but a necessity of nature.” 

“ 3. Now, as sin itself has no more passed over to 
Adam’s posterity than has the punishment of sin, so 
every man, in respect to his moral nature, is born in 
just the same state in which Adam was first created.”* 

The Augustinian theory is as follows :— 

“ 1. Adam’s sin has been propagated among all men, 
and will always be propagated, and that by sensual lust 
in procreation, (concupiscentia,) by which man, in his 
natural state, is subjected to the devil. 

“ 2. The propagation of Adam’s sin among his pos¬ 
terity h a punishment of the same sin. The sin was 
the punishment of the sin. The corruption of human 
nature, in the whole race, was the righteous punish¬ 
ment of the transgression of the first man, in whom all 
men already existed. 

“ 3. The other penalties of Adam’s sin, bodily 
death, the toil of labour, the shame of nakedness, 
sensual lust, pains of parturition, &c., also came upon 
his posterity; and, moreover, the physical punishment 
of Adam’s sin, just as much as the moral, was a posi¬ 
tive penalty. 

“ 4. And as not only Adam’s sin as a punishment, 
but also the other penalties came upon his posterity, 
there hence follows from it the entire moral and phy¬ 
sical corruption of human nature. From that source, 
every man brings into the world a nature already so 
corrupt, that he is not only more inclined to evil than 
to good, but he can do nothing but sin, and is, on this 

* An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism from 
the original Sources, by G. F. Wiggers, D. D., Professor of Theology 
in the University of Rostock. Translated from the German, with notes 
and additions, by Rev. Ralph Emerson, Professor of Eccl. Hist, in the 
Theol. Sem., Andover, Mass., pp. 84-86. 


90 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


account, subject to the righteous sentence of con¬ 
demnation. 

“ 5. This original sin, however, is nothing substan¬ 
tial, but is a quality of the affections, (affectionalis 
qualitas,) and a vice indeed, (vitium,) a weakness, 
(languor.)”* 

These are the ultra notions of the two great cham 
pions in this controversy. It is scarcely necessary in 
this place to add notes of explanation or caution to the 
statements. I have introduced them here, to show that 
the two systems began to diverge upon first principles, 
and that subsequent and less important differences are 
to be traced to those which are primary and funda¬ 
mental. 

On the subjects of free will, grace, and keeping the 
law, opposite views were entertained by the two dis¬ 
putants and their respective adherents. Pelagius main¬ 
tained that the will is naturally free to do good, and is 
not at all impaired by the fall; that there are no special 
influences of the Spirit in regeneration, but all the helps 
that are necessary in that work is insti'uction , and that 
man can by this aid perfectly keep the late. It has 
often been alleged that Pelagius maintained “ that it 
was not only possible for men to become impeccable in 
this life; but that several had actually attained that 
degree of perfection.”! But this seems to be an infer¬ 
ence of his opponents. Professor Wiggers has given 
us numerous quotations of the language of Pelagius, 
taken from the Works of Augustine. And though gene¬ 
rally it is not certain that a writer does justice to his 
antagonist in quoting his language, yet it is always fair 
to conclude that he does not present the doctrines of 
his opponent in too favourable a light. This certainly 

* Historical Presentation, &c., p. 88. 

t Collier’s Historical Dictionary, art. Pelagius. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


91 


cannot be concluded in relation to so heated a writer 
as Augustine. 

Pelagius was brought before a council of fourteen 
bishops belonging to Palestine, at Diospolis, (Lydda,) 
A.D. 415, to answer to sundry charges. Charge vi. 
is, “Pelagius has said, that man may be without sin.” 
Tc this Pelagius responds, “ I have indeed said that 
man may be without sin; and keep God’s command¬ 
ments, if he will. For this ability God has given him. 
But I have not said that any one can be found, from 
infancy to old age, who has never sinned ; but, being 
converted from sin, by his own labour and God’s grace 
he can be without sin ; still, he is not by this immuta¬ 
ble for the future.”* 

Pelagius was here pressed with the objection, that, 
according to his system, man could do all that the 
law required without divine aid, whereas Christ says, 
“Without me ye can do nothing.” To meet this ob¬ 
jection he explains himself: “ Our being able to do, 
say, think all good, is the work of Him that has given 
us this ability, and that aids this ability; but that we 
do, or speak, or think well , is ours, because we are 
also able to turn all these to evil.”t He admits the 
grace of God in our good exercises, but in a very qua¬ 
lified sense. Under grace he comprehends, 

“ 1. The power of doing good, (possibilitas boni,) 
and therefore especially free will itself. ‘ We distin¬ 
guish three things,’ says he, in the passage above cited 
on free will, ‘the ability, the willing, and the being, 
(the posse, velle, and esse.) The ability we place in 
nature; the willing in the will, the being in the effect. 
The first, that is, the ability, pertains properly to God, 
who has conferred it on his creature ; the other two, 
the willing and the being, are to be referred to man, as 
* Historical Presentation, &c., p. 157. t Ibid., p 179. 


92 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE Of 


they descend from the fountain of the will. Hence, ir. 
the intention and in the good act, is the praise of man ; 
nay, both of man and of God, who gave the ability for 
the intention itself and for the act, and who always aids 
the ability itself by the help of his grace. But that 
man is able to will and to do, is of God alone.’ ”* 
And hence the Carthaginian synod, in their letter to 
Innocent, say, “ Pelagius and Caelestius maintain, that 
the grace of God must be placed in his having so con¬ 
stituted and endowed the nature of man, that it can 
fulfil the law of God by its own will.”t 

“ 2. Under the term grace, Pelagius included the 
revelation, the law, and the example of Christ, by 
which the practice of virtue is made easier for man. 
In this sense, Pelagius said, (De Lib. Arbitrio, in Au¬ 
gustine’s De Gr. Chr. 10,) ‘ God works in us to will 
what is good, to will what is holy, while, by the great¬ 
ness of future glory and the promise of future rewards, 
he rouses us, who are devoted to earthly desires and 
delighting like dumb beasts in the present; while, by 
the revelation of wisdom, he rouses our stupid will to 
a longing desire for God ; and while he commends to 
us all that is good.’ ”J 

Upon this position Augustine makes the following 
strong animadversions :—“ * They are most vehemently 
and strenuously to be resisted, who suppose that, by 
the mere power of the human will, without God’s grace, 
they car. suher perfect righteousness, or attain to it by 
protracted effort. And when they begin to be pressed 
with the question, How they presume to assert this as 
taking place without divine aid, they check themselves, 
nor dare to utter the word, because they see how im¬ 
pious and intolerable it is. But they say, that these 

* Historical Presentation, pp. 179,180. f Ibid., p. 180. 

t Ibid., p. 181. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


93 


th ngs do not take place without divine aid, inasmuch 
as God has both created man with free will, and, by 
giving precepts , teaches him how he ought to live; and 
in this , certainly , he aids , as he removes ignorance by 
instruction , so that man may know what he ought to 
avoid and what to seek in his actions, and thus by 
free will, which is naturally implanted, entering the 
way that is pointed out, and by living continently, and 
justly, and piously, he deserves to attain the blessed 
and eternal life.’ Grace, in this sense, Pelagius re¬ 
garded as necessary in order to be without sin. ‘ No 
man is without sin, who has not attained the know 
iedge of law.’ ”* 

“ 3. As already appears from the quotations, Pela¬ 
gius comprehended likewise under grace, the forgive¬ 
ness of sins and future salvation. The Pelagian heresy 
maintains, that the grace of God consists in our being 
so made as to be able, by our own will, to abstain from 
sin, and in God’s giving us the help of his law and his 
commands, and in his pardoning the previous sins of 
those who return to him. In these particulars alone is 
the grace of God to be placed, and not in the aid to 
particular acts. For man can be without sin and fulfil 
God’s commands, if he will. De Gest. 35. In his 
commentary on Rom. v, 6, Pelagius remarks: ‘The 
apostle designs to show, that Christ died for the un¬ 
godly in order to commend his grace by the contem¬ 
plation of beneficence.’ ‘ He confesses,’ says Augus¬ 
tine, (De Nat. et Gr. 18,) ‘that sins already committed 
must be divinely expiated, and that prayer must be 
made to God in order to merit pardon (propter veniam 
promerendam :) for his much praised power of nature 
and the will of man, as himself confesses, cannot undo 
what is already done. In this necessity, therefore, 

* Historical Presentation, pp. 181, 182. 


94 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OE 


nothing is left but for him to pray for pardon.’ And 
even in respect to grace in this sense, according to the 
complaint at Diospolis, Caelestius, in the spirit of the 
Pelagian theory, would have something meritorious, 
on man’s part, to precede his becoming a participant 
of the grace. ‘ Pardon is not granted to the penitent 
[merely] according to the grace and mercy of God, but 
according to the merits and labour of those who have 
become worthy of mercy by repentance.’”* 

“ 4. Pelagius also used grace for gracious influences , 
that is, for God’s supernatural influences on the Chris¬ 
tian, by which his understanding is enlightened, and 
the practice of virtue is rendered easy to him. To this 
relate the words already quoted from the work in favour 
of free will. ‘ God aids us, inasmuch as he enlightens 
us by the manifold and unspeakable gift of heavenly 
grace.’ In his commentary on the declaration of the 
apostle, (2 Cor. iii, 2,) For ye are the epistle of Christ , 
he gives this explanation to the words : ‘ It is manifest 
to all, that ye have believed on Christ through our doc 
trine, the Holy Ghost confirming the power.’”! 

Another council of bishops was assembled at Car¬ 
thage in 418, for the purpose of proscribing Pelagian- 
ism. The general synod (or plenary council , as it is 
called) put forth nine canons against the heresy. Those 
relating to keeping the law, or to legal perfection, are 
as follows :— 

“ VI. Whoever shall say, that the grace of justifica¬ 
tion is given to us, so that we through grace may the 
more easily do what we are commanded to do through 
free will, as though, if grace were not given, we could 
fulfil the divine commands even without it, though not 
easily, let him be anathema. For the Lord was speak¬ 
ing of the fruits of commandments, when he said, not, 
* Historical Presentation, p. 182. t Ibid., p. 183. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


95 


Without me ye do with more difficulty; but, Without 
me ye can do nothing. 

“VII. Whoever thinks that what the apostle John 
says, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 
and the truth is not in us, is to be received as if he 
were to say, It does not become us on the score of 
humility , not that of truth , to say, We have no sin, let 
him be anathema. For the apostle goes on to say, 
But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just who 
forgiveth our sins and cleanseth us from all iniquity. 
Where it sufficiently appears, that this is not only said 
humbly, but also truly. For the apostle could have 
said, If we say we have no sin, we exalt ourselves, 
and humility is not in us. He sufficiently shows, that 
whoever says he has no sin, speaks not the truth, but 
falsehood. 

“ VIII. Whoever says, that in the Lord’s prayer, 
saints say, Forgive us our debts, not as though they 
said it for themselves, for this petition is not now 
necessary for them, but for others among their people 
who are sinners, and therefore each one of the saints 
does not say, Forgive me my debts, but, Forgive us 
our debts; so that the just is understood to ask this for 
others rather than for himself: let him be anathema. 
For the apostle James was holy and just when he said, 
In many things, tue all offend. For why was it added, 
all, unless that this sentiment might agree with the 
psalm, where it is said, Enter not into judgment with 
thy servant , for in thy sight no one living shall be 
justified ? And in the prayer of the most wise Solo¬ 
mon, it is said, There is not a man that sinneth not; 
and in the book of Job, He marketh in the hand of 
every man, that every man may know his infirmity. 
Hence, even the holy and righteous Daniel, when in 
prayer he says, in the plural, We have sinned, we have 


96 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


done iniquity, &c.—lest it should be supposed, when 
he truly and humbly confesses these things, that he 
said them, (as some now think,) not of his own, but 
rather of his people’s sins,—afterward said, While I 
was praying , and confessing my sin and the sin of 
my people to the Lord our God. He would not say, 
our sin; but mentioned the sins of his people and his 
own, because, as a prophet, he foresaw there would be 
those who so badly understand. 

“ IX. Whoever will have those words of the Lord’s 
prayer, Forgive us our debts , to be so spoken by saints 
as if they were not humbly and truly said, let him be 
anathema. For who would endure one praying and 
lying, not to men, but to God himself; who, with his 
lips, says, he wishes to be forgiven, and, in his heart, 
says, he has no debts to be forgiven !”* 

These canons show clearly not only the state of the 
question at issue, but the course of argumentation 
pursued by each party. Upon the canons the learned 
professor makes the following remarks:—“ Such are 
the canons established against the Pelagians at this 
‘ plenary council.’ On close examination, we see it 
follows from them, and particularly from the seventh, 
eighth, and ninth canons, that even those were con¬ 
demned who maintained that there were men who, by 
God’s aid, had led a life free from sin. Augustine 
himself, in his earliest writings against the Pelagians, 
(De Pec. Mer. ii, 6; De Spir. et Lit. 1,) had granted, 
nay, even defended, the position, (taken in the abstract, 
as the Pelagians took it,) that, by God’s grace, man 
can be without sin. And though he did not himself 
believe, that any one is without sin in this life, (De 
Pec. Mer. ii, 7,) still he did not regard this as a dan¬ 
gerous opinion, provided only that one does not believe 
* Historical Presentation, pp. 172-174. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


97 


we can attain it by our own power. De Spir. et Lit. 2; 
De Nat. et Gr. 60. ‘ I know this is the opinion of 

some,’ (viz., that there have been, or are, men without 
sin,) * whose opinion in this matter I dare not censure, 
though I cannot defend it.’ De Perf. Just. Horn. 21. 
In the letter of the five bishops to Innocent, as well as 
in several of the early pieces of Augustine, this position 
was left doubtful, or at least pronounced a sufferable 
error, (tolerabiliter in eo quisque falliter.) Even Am¬ 
brose had held to it, in a certain sense. And in his 
book ‘ On the Acts of Pelagius,’ c. 30, written soon 
after, Augustine numbers this question, both in the 
abstract and in the concrete, among those which are 
not to be denied as though already decided in opposi¬ 
tion to the heretics, but to be kindly discussed among 
the Catholics. But, after this synod, (in C. d. Epp. 
Pel. iv, c. 10,) he represents this opinion as a dan¬ 
gerous and detestable error. He does not, however, 
here present it in the abstract sense in which the Pe¬ 
lagians really held it, but as if they maintained that 
there were and had been righteous men who, in this 
life, had no sin. And from this time onward, as ap¬ 
pears from C. Jul. iv, 3, he could not endure the doc¬ 
trine of man’s ability to be without sin.”* 

It should be carefully considered that the perfection 
for which Pelagius contended was a legal perfection — 
perfect conformity to the demands of the law of inno¬ 
cence. It also appears that he entertained the notion 
that “ the grace of God is given according to our merits” 
—that “ the merit of good-will precedes grace.” He 
says: “ When man is divinely aided, he is aided for 
the purpose of attaining perfection.—The nature of 
man is good which deserves the aid of such grace.”t 

* Historical Presentation, p. 174. 

t Ibid., pp. 189, 190. 

7 


98 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Here is a specific statement from authentic sources 
of the Pelagian system. But a slight examination of 
it will convince any unprejudiced mind that the system 
is but little understood, and that too frequently Pela- 
gianism is charged upon those who are even further 
from that heresy than those are who bring the charge. 

Before I leave the controversy between Augustine 
and Pelagius, a little more attention should be paid to 
the theory of the former. It will have been observed, 
that he sometimes denies, and at other times admits, 
that men can live without sin. And hence both those 
who assert and those who deny the doctrine of perfec¬ 
tion often quote him as authority. The learned pro¬ 
fessor who has furnished the principal part of my ma¬ 
terials upon the Pelagian controversy, advertises us of 
a change in the opinions of Augustine, as to the possi¬ 
bility of keeping the law, after the council of Carthage. 
But the fact is, that, so early as this period, the distinc¬ 
tion between mortal and venial sins, which occupies 
so prominent a place in Romish theology, had obtained. 
And Augustine—the great, the orthodox Augustine- 
held this miserable phantom to be a catholic verity. 
And though a man might avoid all mortal sin, venial 
sins were absolutely unavoidable—the holiest men 
often fell into them. 

Du Pin gives us the following abstract of the views 
of Augustine upon the subject:—“We shall never 
perfectly accomplish the precept of loving God in this 
life, because we shall never love him so perfectly as 
in the next: and though, through God’s grace, a man 
may absolutely avoid all sin in this life; yet it never 
did, nor shall ever happen, that a mere man (excepting 
the blessed Virgin, of whom St. Augustine would not 
have us to speak, when sin is mentioned) passed 
through this life without sin : for this reason, the most 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


99 


righteous say daily, Lord , remit us our debts; that is, 
our sins ; but these are not mortal sins, which bereave 
the soul of righteousness and holiness ; they are venial 
and daily sins, which are indeed against God’s law, 
but do not utterly destroy charity.”* 

A passage from Augustine, if possible, more fully to 
the point, is given by Professor Emerson, the translator 
of the “ Historical Presentation,” as follows :— 

“ After quoting from Ambrose, Augustine thus con¬ 
tinues :—‘For how is sin dead, when it works many 
things in us while we struggle against it? Many 
what? unless they be those foolish and noxious things, 
which plunge those that yield to them in destruction 
and perdition; to endure, by all means, and not to 
comply with which, is the contest, is the conflict, is 
the battle. The battle of what? unless of good and 
evil, not of nature against nature, but of nature against 
the vice, now dead, but yet to be buried, that is, en¬ 
tirely cured ? How, then, do we say, that this sin is 
dead by baptism, as this man [Ambrose] also says, and 
how do we confess that it abides in our members, and, 
while we struggle against it, produces many desires, 
which we resist by not consenting, as he also con¬ 
fesses ; unless that it is dead in respect to that guilt by 
which it held us, and rebels, though dead, till cured by 
the perfection of sepulture ? Although now it is not 
called sin in the sense of making us guilty, but be¬ 
cause it was produced by the guilt of the first man, 
and because, by rebelling, it strives to draw us into 
guilt, if the grace of God through Jesus Christ our 
Saviour do not so aid us, that even dead sin should not 
so rebel as, by conquering, to revive and reign. La¬ 
bouring in this war as long as human life is a trial on 
earth, it is not on this account that we are not without 
* History of Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. iii, p. 205. 


100 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


it, viz., that this, which in this sense is called sin, 
warring against the law of the mind, works in the 
members, even while we do not consent to it in un¬ 
lawful things ; (for, as far as respects us, we should 
always be without sin, until the evil were cured, if we 
were never to consent to evil;) but in whatever things, 
by its rebelling, we are still, though not fatally, yet 
venially conquered, in these we contract that for which 
we are daily to say, Forgive us our debts. Sicut con- 
juges quando modum generationi necessarium, causa 
solius voluptatis, excedunt; sicut continentes quando 
in talibus cogitationibus cum aliqua delectatione remo- 
rantur, non quidem decernentes flagitium, sed inten- 
tionem mentis, non sicut oportet, ne illo incidat, inde 
avertentes, aut si incideret inde rapientes. Respecting 
this law of sin, which law is, in another sense, (alio 
modo,) even called sin, which law wars against the 
law of the mind, and concerning which the blessed 
Ambrose has said many things, testify the saints Cy 
prian, Hilary, Gregory, and very many others.’ C. Jul. 
ii, 9, 10.”* 

Many there are who quote St. Augustine as the 
standard of primitive orthodoxy upon the subject of 
perfection, who, I suppose, would not wish to be un¬ 
derstood as holding that the remains of indwelling sin 
in believers “ is not called sin in the sense of making 
.us guilty”—that they “ are not mortal sins which 
bereave the soul of righteousness and holiness,” but 
“ are venial sins.” Thanks to Providence, that, though 
too many of the errors of this father have been received 
among Protestants, this one, of making ■ some sins 
venial , has been generally condemned. 

Upon this notion of venial sins, and the doctrine of a 
natural ability in man perfectly to keep God’s holy 
* Historical Presentation, pp. 175,176. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


101 


law, and the merit of good works held by Pelagius, 
was finally built the Romish doctrine of works of 
supererogation, and hence the whole fabric of super¬ 
stitious observances which constitute so great a part of 
the Romish religion. 

The council of Trent says, “ If any man say, that 
the precepts and commandments of God unto a man 
justified, and in the state of grace, are impossible to be 
kept, let him be accursed.”* “ They [the Romanists] 
teach that it is not only possible for men to keep the 
law of God in this life, but to do more than is pre¬ 
scribed or commanded, and that men of their abundance 
may allot unto others such works of supererogation.”! 

“ This they say is the very foundation of the monas- 
tical life, which is the most perfect estate and calling 
of Christians : for they perform more than Christ hath 
commanded, not only his precepts but even his coun¬ 
sels also; which they say, do much differ; for the 
precepts are enjoined to all Christians, and to leave a 
precept undone, is sinne ; but the evangelical councils 
are given only to those that are perfect, which they are 
not bound to keep, neither do they sin in leaving them 
undone : yet if they observe them, they do merit more 
and shall have a greater reward; such counsels of 
perfection are these ; to give all we have to the poor; 
to abstain from eating of flesh, to vow chastitie, and 
such like : Bellarm., cap. 7; Rhemist Anot., Matt, xix, 
sec. 9 

The sturdy old champion of the Reformation, Dr 
Willet,§ meets this miserable Romish nonsense thus : 

* Council Tridentine, sess. vi, can. 18. 

t Rhemist, 1 Cor. ix, sec. 6, ex Tileman, lo$ iii, ver. 16, Synopsis 
Papismi, p. 1020. 

t Synop. Pap., p. 321. 

§ Dr. Willet was a learned Protestant, who wrote many ponderous 
tomes. He graduated at Cambridge, and after passing through 


102 


SCRIP! URE DOCTRINE OE 


“We do truly affirm, and according to the Scrip¬ 
tures, that it is impossible for any man to perform the 
law and commandments of God, much less to fulfil 
more than is commanded: and, therefore, it is false, 
that besides the precepts of Christ, there are counsels 
of perfection, which are, at a man’s choice, to doe or 
not to doe, for whatsoever is to the glory of God, we 
are bound to doe. We acknowledge, then, no such 
evangelical counsels as they imagine.”— Calvin. 

“ Bellarmin distinguished: There are, saith he, 
two kinds of perfections ; a less, which consisted in a 
full keeping of the law, which is necessary to salvation ; 
such a perfection is commanded. Matt. v. There is a 
greater perfection, not simply necessary to salvation, 
but to obtain a more excellent degree of glory, in ob¬ 
serving the councils; and this our Saviour meaneth, 
when he biddeth the young man to sell all he had, to 
be perfect. Mark x, 21. Bellarm., cap. ix, argum. 5. 

“ Contra. First, there can be no greater perfection 
than in the absolute fulfilling of the law : for the best 
perfection in this life is love. 1 John iv, 12, 16, 17. 
But love is the fulfilling of the law. Rom. xiii, 10. 
Wherefore that which he called the less perfection is 
the best, seeing it fulfilled the law. Secondly, the 
perfection spoken of Matt, v, 48 is the best perfec¬ 
tion, to be perfect as God is perfect: for what greater 
perfection can there be, than to be perfect according to 

various trying changes, such as were common in the age in which 
he lived to all who took the liberty to think for themselves, he died 
A. D. 1612. 

His Synopsis Papismi is a folio, of thirteen hundred and fifty-two 
pages. My copy was^printed in 1634, and has written upon the 
inside of the cover the following commendations:— T 

“ A learned, sound, and comprehensive work.— E. Bickersteth” 

“ To encounter the Romanists you will be admirably furnished in 
the Synopsis Papismi of A. Willet.— Cotton Mather." 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


103 


the example of God ? Thirdly, that thing to the which 
Christ exhorteth the young man, to sell all he had to 
give to the poor, is not so great a point of perfection as 
this, whereof Christ speaketh, that we should love our 
enemies, and so be perfect as God is perfect: for a 
man may give all his goods to the poor, and yet be 
without love; (1 Cor. xiii, 3;) but he cannot love his 
enemies, unless he have love : wherefore this point of 
perfection seemeth to be greater than the other, and so 
Bellarmin hath lost a good distinction. Wherefore this 
remaineth a strong place, notwithstanding all his cavils, 
that exhortation to perfection containeth not only a 
councill, but a precept also, and commandment.”* 

J will now give another specimen of the controversy 
between the Romanists and Protestants, from Bishop 
Jewell. The bishop, in his Apology, says,—“ We say 
also, that every person is borne in sinne, and leadeth 
his life in sinne : that nobody is able truly to say, his 
heart is clean: that the most righteous person is but 
an unproffitable servant: that the law of God is per¬ 
fect, and requireth of us perfect and full obedience : 
that we are able by no means to fulfill the law in this 
worldly life : that there is no one mortal creature which 
can be justified by his own deserts in God’s sight. And, 
therefore, that our only succour and refuge is to fly to 
the mercy of our Father by our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
assuredly to persuade our minds, that he is the obtainer 
of forgiveness for our sinnes : and that, by his blood, all 
our spots of sin be washed clean.” 

To this Harding, the famous Romish champion, of 
Lovain, answers,—“Yee make a sophistical argu¬ 
ment, when yee teach, because the law of God re¬ 
quireth of us full obedience, that therefore it cannot be 
satisfied in this by any means. For when yee say, it 
* Synopsis Papismi, p. 323. 


104 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


requireth of us full obedience, if ye mean such full 
obedience as is required only in this life, then conclude 
yee falsely, that we can by no means satisfy it. But 
if yee mean such full obedience as is only performed 
in heaven, then yee conclude well, that we in this life 
cannot fulfill such perfection, as is required in heaven. 
But then have yee said nothing to the purpose ! For we 
know what mark yee shoot at, by jour doctrine uttered 
in other places : your meaning is, that no man in this 
life is able to fulfill the commandments. We believe, 
God commandeth nothing impossible to us. Otherwise 
how could he justly punish for not doing that command¬ 
ment, which by no means we are able to fulfill ? We 
are sure that God punisheth no man unjustly, for Non 
est apud Dominum Deum nostrum iniquitas: there is 
no iniquity in our Lord God.” 

Bishop Jewell replies :—“ All other things being by 
you touched, M. Harding, I will pass over: thinking 
it sufficient, to note a few wmrds of the ‘possibility 
and performance of the law,’ and so much the more, 
for that yee seem herein in some part, to renew the 
Pelagian heretics’ old condemned error. 

“ As touching that full and perfect obedience that is 
required of us by the law, ye answer, There are 
sundry sorts of perfection: namely, that there is per¬ 
fection in children; perfection in men; perfection in 
angels; and perfection in God. And further ye say, 
‘ that in this life we cannot fulfill such perfection, as is 
required of the angels of God in heaven.’ And this 
answer ye make, touching the obedience, and perform¬ 
ing of the law: as if ye would say, The law of God was 
given to angels, and is to be performed, not in the 
earth, but only in heaven; and, as if God had said to 
those blessed spirits, ‘ Thou shalt not kill; thou shall 
not commit adultery ; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


105 


not covet,’ &c. In your sundrie perfections of chil¬ 
dren, men, angels, and God, I have no skill. The 
Apology meant only of that perfection that is required 
of man. Howbeit, in every kind they say, Perfectum 
est cui nihil deest: that thing is perfect that is full and 
absolute and wanteth nothing. 

“ And here, lest ye should deceive yourself by wrong 
measure, God himself hath showed you, what perfec¬ 
tion he requireth of man. Thus he saith, ‘ Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy 
soul, and with all thy power; thou shalt not turn 
neither to the right hand, nor to the left: accursed is 
he that standeth not in every thing that is written in the 
law to perform the same.’ And St. James saith, 
* Whoso offendeth in one commandment, is guilty of 
all.’ And Christ saith, ‘Be ye perfect (not measuring 
yourselves by your own ability, but) as your Father is 
perfect which is in heaven.’ And yet hereby he mean- 
eth not the perfection that is in God and his angels, but 
only that perfection that is required in man. 

“ St. Hierome saith, the Pelagian heretics in old 
times used the same shifts that you use now. For 
whereas the Catholic learned fathers said, ‘No man 
is perfect and void of sin,’ they answered then even 
in such sort as you do now; no man is perfect in 
such degree of perfection as God is perfect. St. 
Hierome's words be these :—‘ They say (even as you, 
M. Harding, say) that in comparison of God , no man 
is perfect: as though this were the saying of the 
Scriptures.’ And therefore he'saith unto them, ‘I 
beseech you, hath God commanded me, that I should 
be the same that God is? that there should be no 
difference (in perfection) between me and my Lord the 
Creator? That I should be above the highness of 
angels? or that I should have that the angels have 


106 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


not?’ It was in vain, then, M. Harding, thus to bor¬ 
row the Pelagians' weapons, and to make matter of 
this perfection. For we speak not of angels, but only 
of men. 

“ Further, to intreat of the perfect fulfilling and 
accomplishing of the law , I mean, so far as the law 
requireth, the Pelagian heretics herein also said, even 
as you say, and none otherwise. As St. Augustine 
thereof reporteth thus: ‘ The Pelagians think them¬ 
selves caring more, when they say, God would not 
command that thing that he knoweth a man is not able 
to do. And who is there that knoweth not this ? But, 
therefore, God commandeth us to do some things that 
we are not able to do, that we may understand what 
we ought to crave of him.’ 

“ St. Hierome saith unto one of the same Pelagians : 
‘Ye say, God’s commandments be easy: and yet ye 
are able to show us no man that ever fulfilled them 
altogether.’ 

“ Therefore again he saith unto them : * Set not thy 
face against Heaven, to mock fools’ ears with these 
words, he , and can he. For who will grant you that 
a man can do that thing that no man was ever able 
to do?’ 

“ Likewise St. Augustine saith : ‘ I said, it is im¬ 
possible that a man may be without sin, if he want not 
will, the power of God assisting him : and yet I said, 
that besides only Christ, in whom all men shall be 
quickened to life, there was never a man, nor never 
shall be, who, being in this life, shall have this per¬ 
fection .’ St. Augustine saith: ‘No man can attain 
to this perfection :’ and he speaketh of the perfection 
that is required, not of angels, but of men. 

“Ye will say, as the Pelagians did, Wherefore, then, 
doth Christ say, ‘ Be ye perfect V Wherefore doth St. 


CHRISTIAN PERf ACTION. 


107 


Paul say, ‘ As many of us as be perfect ?’ &c. Hereto 
St. Hierome answereth thus : ‘ What then do we think, 
or what ought we to think, that be not perfect? We 
ought to confess, that we are imperfect, and that we 
have not yet gotten, nor taken (that perfection) that is 
required. This is the true wisdom of a man to know 
himself to be unperfect. And as I say the perfection 
of all just men living in the flesh is unperfect.’ 

“ Again he saith: ‘ They are called just men, not 
for that they be void of all manner of sin, but for that 
they are furnished with the greater part of virtues.’ 
So likewise saith St. Augustine: ‘ The virtue that is 
now in a just man, so far forth is called perfect, that it 
pertaineth to the perfection thereof, both in truth to 
know, and in humility to confess, that it is unperfect.’ 
And again he saith : ‘ All the commandments of God 
are accounted to be done, when that thing that is not 
done, is forgiven.’ To conclude, he saith: ‘He hath 
much profited in . this life, that by his profiting, hath 
learned how far he is from the perfection of right¬ 
eousness.’ 

“ Yet, nevertheless, we may truly use St. Hierome’s 
words, uttered in defence of this same cause : ‘ Not¬ 
withstanding we say thus, yet we flatter not vices : but 
we follow the authority of the Scriptures, that there is 
no man without sin. But God hath shut up all things 
under sin, that he may have mercy of all.’ Again he 
saith : ‘ It is most certain that every man, yea, although 
he be grown to perfection, yet needeth the mercie of 
God: and that he enjoyeth full perfection, not of his 
own deserving, but of grace.’ Even so St. Augustine 
saith : ‘ Our very righteousness itself is so great in this, 
that it standeth rather in forgiveness of our sins than 
m perfection of righteousness.’ ”* 

* Works of Bishop Jewell, pp. 298—301, fol., 1009. 


10S. SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 

The intelligent reader of this argument of Jewell will 
not fail to remark several things:—1. That Bishop 
Jewell speaks of a legal perfection , and not at all of 
that perfection which consists in a ripeness of the 
Christian graces. 2. That Harding, with true Jesuit¬ 
ical cunning, avoids saying any thing of the merit of 
works—or works of supererogation ; simply confining 
himself to the absurdity of holding that a God of jus¬ 
tice would require impossibilities. 3. That the bishop 
makes a more free use of the fathers than of the Scrip¬ 
tures : this he did because he was debating the matter 
with one who acknowledged the paramount authority 
of these fathers—giving no sense to the Scriptures but 
such as had the sanction of what they call the unani¬ 
mous consent of the fathers. 4. That these fathers 
evidently, after all their zeal against the Pelagian error 
of perfection, acknowledge—as all, indeed, who reve¬ 
rence the Scriptures are forced to do—a qualified per¬ 
fection to be predicable of men on earth. We shall 
see this last fact more fully sustained in the future. 

John Fox, the English martyrologist, meets the ques¬ 
tion with a more clear discrimination of the real point 
at issue than most of the reformers whose works have 
come down to our times. He says — 

“ Osorio defines righteousness, that ‘ it is a state of 
soul founded on the law of God,’ and that ‘ it bears a 
clear resemblance to the immutability of the divine 
virtue.’ In like manner also Andradius not much dif¬ 
fers from him. ‘ Righteousness,’ saith he, ‘ is an im¬ 
movable equity and government of mind, which mea¬ 
sures all its actions and counsels by the law of God.’ 
And the same again presently: 4 Righteousness is a 
habit of mind fashioned by the divine law, to obey that 
divine law and will, as it persuades to perform the 
offices of every virtue,’ &c. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


109 


“ Herein is your error, that whereas there is a two¬ 
fold and diverse sort of righteousness set before us in 
Scripture, the one which is of the law, and peculiar 
to God ; the other which is of faith, and peculiar to us ; 
you are so taken up in defining the one, that you do 
not at all touch upon the other, about which the chief 
matter of controversy is here. And so you proceed in 
setting forth the perfect excellency of the divine right¬ 
eousness, and justly so indeed to be accounted of, that 
in the mean while you leave no righteousness to man 
at all. For what righteousness shall man have, if 
righteousness be so strictly defined, that it cannot con¬ 
sist but of works of perfect righteousness, nor be com¬ 
municated unless to perfect men ? 

“ For now, seeing no men are so perfect in this 
world but that this miserable depravation of our nature 
is far from this exactness, and there is none, as Augus¬ 
tine witnesses, so long as he is in this life, who pre¬ 
tends himself to be just in the sight of God—by neces¬ 
sary consequence it follows, that either there is no 
righteousness of ours at all in this life, or it must be 
another than that which your definition thus circum¬ 
scribes to us; for thus you define it: ‘ That it is an 
excellent state of mind, conformed by the divine law, 
founded upon divine prescription, free from all wicked¬ 
ness, and coming near in its resemblance to the divine 
nature.’ And indeed in that state we were created in 
the beginning. But we have lost it long since, neither 
are we yet perfectly restored, but we shall be restored 
at length by the divine power and bounty of Christ, on 
the day that this our corruption shall put on incorrup¬ 
tion, and this mortal body shall rise again to immor¬ 
tality. In which state of resurrection we believe with 
Augustine that we shall fulfil righteousness, that is, we 
shall have complete righteousness. ‘ In comparison 


110 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


of that resurrection,’ saith he, 4 the whole life that we 
now live is but dung.’ ” 

“ Therefore, this is not the controversy, whether the 
regenerate, by the help of the grace of God, can do any 
thing in this life piously and commendably : neither is 
this the controversy, whether the absolute grace of God 
in the regenerate is able to perform this, that their 
works should be free of all sin : but whether the grace 
of God in this flesh, furnishes any of the regenerate 
with so great a power of perfecting righteousness, that 
any work of theirs is so complete and perfect, if it be 
examined according to the rule of the divine law, that 
it needs no pardon or mediator. But if it needs mercy, 
then it is necessarily joined with pollution and sin, so 
that now the praise belongs to the Mediator and not to 
man; to imputation, not to action; to grace, not to 
merit; to faith, not to works ; that God accepts of the 
works of the regenerate and most holy men. Neither 
is the rectitude of our good things any thing else but 
the forgiveness of God, and the remission of his just 
severity. Whence the apostle rightly concludes, that 
those who are of the works of the law, not speaking 
of evil works, but the most perfect works, are under 
the curse; and upon this account it is true, which 
Luther says, that a righteous man sins in every good 
work. Not that the work itself, being appointed by the 
law of God, is a sin; but because, according to the 
saying of Augustine, whatsoever is less than it ought 
to be, is faulty. From whence it appears evident, that 
in this life there is no work so perfect but something 
is wanting; that is, there is sin in it, if it be judged 
according to the strict rigour of the law.”* 

* These paragraphs are copied from a work entitled “ Of Free 
Justification by Christ,” &c.: a portion of Fox’s Works. London: 
printed for the Religious Tract Society, constituting one volume of a 
uniform set of the English Reformers. See pp. 180,181; 223, 224. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


Ill 


In the investigation of the history of religious contro 
versy, nothing seems so obvious as the fact that one 
extreme begets another. Augustine, in his heat in 
opposing the Pelagian error of man’s natural purity* 
and his ability perfectly to keep the law, falls into the 
opposite error, of the necessary or certain continuance 
of concupiscence in the hearts of the best men through 
life. Several of the reformers, in opposing the Romish 
doctrine of legal perfection and the merit of good 
works, more confidently than Augustine himself, main¬ 
tained the same position, with the modifications, that 
God willed this for the promotion of the humility, 
faith, and patience of the saints; and that death is 
the instrument of their final deliverance from the body 
of sin. 

Luther says :—“ The time of the law is when the 
law exerciseth me, tormenteth me with heaviness of 
heart, oppresseth me, bringeth me to the knowledge 
of sin, and increaseth the same. Here the law is in 
his true use and perfect work : which a Christian often¬ 
times feeleth as long as he liveth.—This battle doth 
every Christian feel. To speak of myself, there are 
many hours in the which I chide and contend with 
God, and impatiently resist him. The wrath and judg¬ 
ment of God displeaseth me; and again, my impa¬ 
tience, my murmuring, and such like sins, do displease 
him. And this is the time of the law, under the which 
a Christian man continually liveth, as touching the 
flesh. Wherefore, if we could perfectly apprehend 
Christ, which hath abolished the law by his death, and 
hath reconciled us unto his Father, that schoolmaster 
should have no power over us at all. But the law of 
the members, rebelling against the law of the mind, 
letteth [hindereth] us, that we cannot perfectly lay hold 
upon Christ. The lack, therefore, is not in Christ, but 


112 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


in us, which have not yet put off this flesh, to which 
sin continually cleaveth, as long as we live.”* 

Hooper says :—“ The Father of heaven, for the sake 
of Christ, not only remits the sins wrought willingly 
against the word of God, but also the imperfection and 
natural concupiscence which remains in every man, as 
long as the nature of man is mortal.”! 

Cranmer , speaking of the office of the Holy Ghost 
in our sanctification, says :—“ And this work he works 
continually in us, and ceases not till he has wrought in 
our hearts a perfect faith and a perfect charity, and 
until sin and all evil desires are at length wholly purged 
out of us by the death of the body. And then we shall 
be perfect in .all holiness, and delivered from all sin and 
adversity, and be heirs of our Father’s kingdom, and 
his true and most dearly beloved children.”! 

That this doctrine of the necessary continuance of 
indwelling sin until death comes to our relief should 
have been held by our reformers, who had but just 
emerged from the gross darkness of Popery, and were 
so incessantly engaged in opposing the doctrine of the 
merit of works , is not surprising. And that they them¬ 
selves should not have attained to the full liberty of the 
gospel is no strange thing. Nor is it an argument of 
the least weight in the case in hand. But that so many 
of the reformed churches should have continued to the 
present day upon the same ground is not a little mys¬ 
terious. Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation, and 
Calvin’s doctrine of a limited atonement, have indeed 
measurably faded away before the light of truth, and 
are now scarcely known. But the doctrine of “ sinful 

* Commentary on Galatians, chap, iii, ver. 23, 25. 
t British Reformers—Writings of John Hooper, p. 62. 
t British Reformers—Writings of Rev. Dr. Thomas Cranmer, pp, 
178, 179. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


113 


imperfection and a death purgatory ,” as it is styled 
by Mr. Fletcher, still has an abundance of pious and 
learned advocates in the churches. 

The Westminster divines say:—“No man is able, 
either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, 
perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth 
daily break them in thought, word, and deed.”* This 
article expresses the doctrine of the reformed churches 
of the continent of Europe, the kirk of Scotland, and 
the Presbyterian churches in England and America. 
If by “ commandments” be meant the law of innocence, 
or, by keeping them, Adamic purity , the statement is 
well founded, though some of the passages by which 
it is sustained do not prove it. And in that case it is 
clearly against those who acknowledge the attainable¬ 
ness of such a state of perfection, their denial of the 
fact that any do actually attain to it notwithstanding. 
But if by the commandments be meant the evangelical 
law, I demur, and ask for the proof. The passages 
quoted by the reverend authors, as I shall show upon 
a future occasion, are nothing to their purpose ; if they 
were, they would prove that our Lord Jesus Christ 
had instituted an impracticable religion. It must not 
be overlooked that this article follows the discussion 
of the decalogue, or ten commandments. Now, to 
look at the matter abstractly, who is prepared to ad¬ 
mit that Christians—the best Christians—must “ daily 
break” the ten commandments “ in thought, word, and 
deed,” notwithstanding “any grace received?” But 
my object is not here to discuss the merits of this 
question. The same views with those of the West¬ 
minster divines were sustained by the synod of Dort, 
and acceded to by all the reformed churches of the 
continent, excepting the Remonstrants. 

* Larger Catechism, quest. 149. 


114 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


LECTURE VI. 

CONTROVERSIES-CONTINUED. 

“ Prove all things: hold fast that which is good.” 1 Thess. v,21. 

The thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England 
were designed to constitute an effectual barrier against 
the corruptions of the Romish communion, and conse¬ 
quently many of these articles are sfmply a denial of 
leading doctrines of that communion. The fifteenth 
article is entitled, “ Of Christ alone without sin.” 
Here, after asserting the spotless purity of Christ, the 
article proceeds:—“ But all we the rest (although 
baptized and born again in Christ) yet offend in many 
things ; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive our¬ 
selves, and the truth is not in us.” 

Bishop Burnet, after an exposition of this article, 
and offering some doubtful opinions with regard to the* 
“ design in the contexture of Scripture to represent to 
us some of the failings of the best men,” concludes 
thus:— 

“ Yet this is not to be abused by any to be an encou¬ 
ragement to live in sin; for we may carry this purity 
and perfection certainly very far, by the grace of God. 
In every sin that we commit, we do plainly- perceive 
that we do it with so much freedom, that we might not 
have done it: here is still just matter for humiliation 
and repentance. By this doctrine our Church intends 
only to repress the pride of vain-glorious and hypocri¬ 
tical men, and to strike at the root of that filthy mer¬ 
chandise that has been brought into the house of God, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


115 


under the pretence of perfection, and even the over¬ 
doing or supererogating, of the saints.”* 

Philip Melancthon, the coadjutor of Luther in the 
great and glorious Reformation from Popery, gives us 
the following exposition of the subject:— 

“ In fine, there remains even in the regenerate a 
mass of sin which transcends the comprehension of 
man; nor do we regard that as a light saying, ‘ Who 
can understand his errors V It would be tedious to 
enumerate the various kinds of sin which remain in 
the saints ; but Paul seems to sum them up, Rom. vii, 
where he speaks of our inward opposition to all the 
commands. Rut proud hypocrites understand not 
these secret sins; nay, the monks teach that doubts 
concerning Providence and the wrath and mercy of 
God, and that corrupt affections, unless we yield to 
them our consent, are not sinful. Nor is their error 
merely verbal; it is substantial; they deny that these 
vices are repugnant to the divine law. This is false 
and insulting to the law of God; it brings darkness 
upon the doctrine of grace and of justification by faith, 
and establishes a deceptive persuasion that the righte¬ 
ous can satisfy the law of God.”—“ But why prolong 
discussion ? The whole Scripture, the whole church, 
proclaim that the law is not satisfied. Our imperfect 
fulfilment of the law, therefore, is not pleasing in itself, 
but only on account of faith in Christ. Irrespective 
of this, the law always accuses us ; for who sufficiently 
loves and fears God ? Who sustains with sufficient 
patience the afflictions which God sends ? Who does 
not frequently doubt, whether human affairs are not 
governed by chance, rather than by the counsel of 
God ? Who does not often doubt whether God hears 
prayer? Who is not often angry that wicked men 
* Exposition of the XXXIX Articles. 


116 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


prosper more than the righteous, and that the righteous 
are oppressed by the wicked ? Who completely fulfils 
his own vocation ? Who loves his neighbour as him¬ 
self? Who is unmoved by concupiscence ? Therefore, 
says Paul, ‘ the good that I would I do not; but the 
evil which I would not, that I do.’ And again, ‘ With 
the mind I serve the law of God; but with the flesh 
the law of sin.’ Here he openly declares that he serves 
the law of sin.” 

I copy this passage from the Christian Review, 
where it is introduced in the following manner:— 

“ While, therefore, the council of Trent decided in 
favour of the attainableness of perfection in the present 
life, this doctrine was boldly denied by the Augsburgh 
Confession of Faith, prepared by Luther and Melanc- 
thon. And Melancthon, in his Apology for this Con¬ 
fession, as well as in his Loci Theologici, records his 
protest and his strong arguments against this doc¬ 
trine.”* 

The only passage in the Augsburgh Confession 
which has any reference to the subject under discus¬ 
sion is the following:—“ They [the reformed churches] 
condemn the Pelagians, and others, who teach that it 
is possible, by the sole power of reason, without the 
aid of the Holy Spirit, to love God above all things, 
and do his commandments.”! 

It is clear that the Augsburgh Confession, and its 
great defender, direct their opposition, not against the 
Wesleyan theory of evangelical perfection, but the 
graceless theory of Pelagians, and the legal system of 
the Romanists. The expressions of Melancthon upon 
the subject of the remaining corruptions of “the rege¬ 
nerate” are not a whit stronger than those of Mr. Wes¬ 
ley, which he gives us in his sermon “ on Sin in Be- 
* No 26, p. 232. 


t Art. XVIIT. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


117 


lievers.” The difference seems to be that Mr. Wesley 
makes a general, and Melancthon a universal applica¬ 
tion of his doctrine to the actual state of Christians. 

But in addition to their Confession of Faith, the re¬ 
formers also submitted to the Diet a list of corruptions 
which had crept into the Roman Church, and which 
they had corrected. Chap. vi. is “ of monastic vows 
and contains the following distinct and explicit admis¬ 
sion of the doctrine of perfection :—“ Those therefore 
who would be justified by their vows, have abandoned 
the grace of God through Christ; for they rob Christ 
of his glory, who alone can justify us, and transfer this 
glory to their vows and monastic life. It is moreover 
a corruption of the divine law and of true worship, to 
hold up the monastic life to the people as the only 
perfect one. For Christian perfection consists in this, 
that we love and fear God with all our heart, and yet 
combine with it sincere reliance and faith in him 
through Christ: that it is our privilege and duty to 
supplicate the throne of grace for such things as we 
need in all our trials, and in our respective callings ; 
and to give diligence in the performance of good works. 
It is in this that true perfection consists, and the true 
worship of God, but not in begging, or in a black or a 
white cap.”* 

From this it appears most clearly that the sober 
views which were adopted by Mr. Wesley upon the 
subject of Christian perfection were far from having 
been condemned by the reformers. The true Wes¬ 
leyan theory is here, in general terms, explicitly ad¬ 
mitted, at the same time that the Romish errors upon 
the subject are condemned. It is not however pretend¬ 
ed that the reformers did not, in their opposition to the 

* See Appendix to Burnet on the XXXIX Articles, published by 
D. Appleton & Co., p. 539 


118 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE 01 


Pelagian and Romish errors, fall into some extreme 
views upon the other hand. This we have previously- 
shown to be the fact. Sometimes, as in the article 
above quoted, they were wise enough to hit the happy 
medium. When our opponents have occasion to use 
the authority of the reformers upon this subject, if 
they would correctly exhibit the system these good 
men opposed, they would neither do them nor us 
injustice. 

I will next present the views of two learned Calvin- 
istic divines, who flourished in the seventeenth century. 
What they admit, and what they deny and controvert, 
will show the state of the controversy in their time. 

The following is translated from Turretin, De Per- 
fectione Sanctificationis, vol. ii, pp. 759, 760 :— 

“ The same question has been brought up anew in 
this age by the Neo-Pelagians, the Papists, the Soci- 
nians, and the Anabaptists, who have declared that the 
]aw can be perfectly fulfilled by the regenerate, that 
they might open a way for the merit of works. Hence 
there has arisen among the Papists themselves, be¬ 
tween the Jansenists and Jesuits, no inconsiderable 
strife in reference to this point; thus one of the five 
famous propositions of Jansen, condemned by Innocent 
X., was this: ‘To righteous persons, though willing 
and striving, some of the precepts of God are impos¬ 
sible, according to the present strength which they 
have, and they lack that grace by which these pre¬ 
cepts could become possible.’ Though we might in¬ 
deed discuss the imperfection of sanctification, and the 
impossibility of fulfilling the law, as distinct questions, 
yet, since they tend to the same result, and are proved 
by the same arguments, we will here consider them 
together. 

“ That the state of the question may be rightly un- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


119 


derstood, it is to be observed, 1st. That the question is 
not concerning the perfection of sincerity, which con¬ 
sists in this, that one may serve God with a heart un¬ 
stained and undivided. For we think that this ought 
to be found in true believers, as it is attributed to Job, 
(Job i, 1,) where he is said to have been ‘perfect and 
upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.’ 
And Hezekiah lays claim to this in Isa. xxxviii, 3. 
2d. It is not concerning a perfection in extent, one 
that is subjective in respect to the whole man, who 
ought to be wholly sanctified in body as well as in 
soul and spirit, (1 Thess. v, 23,) and objective in re¬ 
spect to the whole law in all its commands. For we 
believe that this also is required of the believer, as it 
is declared of Zacharias and Elisabeth, Luke i, 6. 
3d. It is not concerning comparative perfection, which 
is attributed to some believers who were more advanced 
than others ; in which sense the believers of the New 
Testament are called perfect, (re/Lemt, adults,) 1 Cor. 
ii, 6, in comparison with those of the Old Testament, 
who are called children, (vtjtclol,) Gal. iv, 1. And this 
epithet is applied to Christian believers who had made 
greater attainments than others in faith and piety, and 
who had ‘ their senses exercised to discern both good 
and evil’ more than others who as yet have need of 
milk, and are concerned with the elements of religion, 
who are referred to in Phil, iii, 15, and Heb. v, 13. 
4th. It is not concerning evangelical perfection, which 
covers our imperfections with the garment of grace 
and the forbearance of the Father, (kmemeia, paterna ,) 
since all those things which have been done are not 
imputed, while those which have not been done are 
pardoned, that is, covered by the righteousness of 
Christ, in whom we are said to be perfect. Col. ii, 10 
For all these kinds of perfection we acknowledge. 


120 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


But we are to inquire in reference to a legal perfection, 
absolute in every respect, so that nothing is wanting to 
it, as well in degree as in extent. 

“Noris the question concerning absolute and entire 
impossibility, in accordance with which it is said that 
any thing cannot be done, either because it involves a 
contradiction, or because it is at variance with the 
nature of God, or because man is not competent for 
its performance under any condition. For in this 
sense we do not say that the commands of God are 
impossible to man; because they were possible to man 
in his natural state, and they would be possible to a 
regenerate man in the state of grace, if God would give 
such a measure of grace as would take away all the 
corruption of the heart; and they will be possible in the 
glorified state. But it is concerning impossibility con¬ 
sidered relatively in view of our condition, and the 
order established by God, who, although he could have 
done it, was yet unwilling to grant us perfection of 
sanctification here for very important reasons ; that so 
there might be a distinction between the condition of 
our pilgrimage and of the heavenly country, of the 
church militant and of the church triumphant, and that 
thus a desire for holiness might be excited in a higher 
degree, and we might know that we must not be indo¬ 
lent in the work of salvation, since there is always 
something to be done, and enemies are never wanting 
with whom we must contend. 

“The question is not, whether the works of the right¬ 
eous are truly good, which our opponents improperly 
urge in this place, because this belongs to another 
question, that is, concerning the truth of good works, 
in the consideration of which it will be shown in what 
sense the works of believers are truly good, and yet 
may be called sins. But it is asked, whether they are 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


121 


so perfect that they answer the demands of the law, 
and it can find nothing in them to reprehend? 

44 The question then comes to this, whether the re¬ 
generate believer can so promote his own sanctifica¬ 
tion, that he may attain to perfection, not only in ex¬ 
tent, but in degree, and could fulfil the law, not only 
sufficiently (emetKog) and evangelically, but completely 
(anpifi «$•) and.legally, and so abundantly satisfy the 
divine law, as to live not only without guilt, but even 
without sin, and so that the law may have nothing 
which it can accuse and condemn if God should come 
into judgment with him? Our opponents support the 
affirmative, we the negative.”* 

Nearly to the same purpose are the views of Witsius: 

“It cannot, indeed, be denied that sometimes the 
Scripture makes mention of some who are said to be 
perfect even in this life. But it is to be observed that 
the term perfection is not always used in the same 
sense. For, 1st. There is a perfection of sincerity , 
consisting in this, that a man serves God with an un¬ 
feigned heart, without any reigning hypocrisy. In this 
sense it is said of Job that he was 4 * 1 ®^ tan, perfect 
and upright , and one that feared God and eschewed 
evil,’ Job i, 1. In the same sense Hezekiah protests 
that he had walked before God 4 in truth, and with a 
perfect heart, and done what was good in his eyes,’ 
Isa. xxxviii, 3. 2dly. There is a perfection of parts; 
and that both subjective , with respect to the whole man, 
in so far as he is 4 sanctified wholly, in spirit, soul, and 
body,’ 1 Thess. v, 23, and objective , with respect to 
the whole law, when all and every one of the duties 

* Translated from Turretin’s Institutio Theologiae Elencticse Locus 
Decimus Septimus Qusestio II. De Perfectione Sanctificationis, An 
Sanctificatio sit ita perfecta in hac vita, ut Fideles legem absolute 
implere possint ? Neg. contra Pontif. et Socin. 


122 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


prescribed by God are observed without exception. 
Of this David was speaking, Psa. cxix, 128, ‘I esteem 
all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and 
I hate every false way.’ And it is said of Zacharias 
and Elisabeth, Luke i, 6, that they ‘ walked in all the 
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.’ 
3dly. There is a comparative perfection ascribed to 
those who are advanced in knowledge, faith and sancti¬ 
fication, in comparison of those who are still infants and 
untaught; in this manner John distinguishes little chil¬ 
dren , young men , and fathers, 1 John ii, 12, 13. In 
that sense Paul speaks of the perfect , 1 Cor. ii, 6, and 
Phil, iii, 15. 4thly. There is also an evangelical per¬ 
fection, or with a veil or covering of grace, according 
to which those persons are looked upon as perfect who 
sincerely endeavour after perfection, God, for the sake 
of Christ, graciously accepting the attempts of a ready 
mind, and accounting every thing to be done, because 
what is not done is forgiven. The apostle speaks of 
this, 2 Cor. viii, 12: ‘For if there be first a willing 
mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and 
not according to that he hath not.’ Thus ‘we are 
complete in Christ,’ Col. ii, 10, his most perfect right¬ 
eousness covering all our defects. However, this is to 
be understood in a proper manner; for the judgment 
of God is always according to truth : he so judges of 
us and our actions as they are; and, seeing we our¬ 
selves and our actions are imperfect, he cannot but 
judge us to be so. This is what we should say 
agreeable to Scripture, that God, on account of the 
most perfect obedience of Christ, graciously accepts 
the sincerity of his people, nor less bountifully rewards 
them than if their holiness was in every respect com¬ 
plete. 5thly, and lastly. There is also a perfection of 
degrees , by which a person performs all the commands 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


123 


of God, with the fall exertion of all his powers, with 
out the least defect, having rooted up every depraved 
lust. This is what the law of God requires. And this 
is that perfection which we deny the saints to have in 
this life, though we willingly allow them all the other 
kinds above mentioned.”* 

Here the positions of the opponents of the doctrines 
maintained by Anabaptists, Neo-Pelagians, &c., on the 
subject of perfection, are very systematically and per¬ 
spicuously stated. Several points, here fully set forth, 
it will be important to notice. 

1. It is maintained that the term perfection is used 
in various senses. * Now, those who would fain have 
us understand that they follow these great doctors upon 
the subject of perfection, seem to affix to the term but 
one single idea, and that is, the idea of absoluteness — 
implying what these authors call “the perfection of 
degrees .” 

2. In their detail of the several species of perfection 
which they admit, they not only yield the point that the 
Scriptures teach the doctrine, but do also embrace 
every thing that we mean by Christian or evangelical 
perfection. See particularly the second division of the 
subject by Turretin. 

3. These writers hold to the doctrine of imputed 
perfection :—that by which all the Christian’s corrup¬ 
tions are hid “ with the veil or covering of grace.” As 
Calvin says : “ Where remission of sins has been pre¬ 
viously received, and good works -which succeed are 
estimated far beyond their intrinsic merits ; for all their 
imperfections are covered by the perfection of Christ, 
and all their blemishes are removed by his purity, that 
they may not be scrutinized by the divine judgment”! 

* Economy of the Covenants, vol. ii, pp. 59, 60, chap, ii, sec. 125. 

t Calvin’s Institutes, book iii, chip, xvii, sec. viii. 


124 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


This species of perfection, which consists in covering 
the impurities and unrighteousness of the elect with 
the perfect righteousness of Christ, is not generally 
maintained by our opponents of the present day. 

4. The perfection which these writers deny to he 
predicable of man is “ the perfection of degrees,” by 
which they mean a “perfection not only in extent, but 
in degree,” so that the individual who is the subject 
of it “ could fulfil the law, not only sufficiently, and 
evangelically, but completely and legally, and so abun¬ 
dantly satisfy the divine law—that it may have nothing 
which it can accuse and condemn if God should 
come into judgment with him.” 

I need not say that this is not our doctrine. And if 
the views opposed by these learned theologians are 
correctly laid at the door of any sects existing in their 
times, however we may by our opponents be ranked 
with them, under the general term perfectionists , let it 
now be fully understood that we come infinitely nearer 
the perfectionism ofTurretin and Witsius (excepting 
their notion of imputed perfection) than that of those 
they so vehemently oppose. 

Perhaps it may be necessary here to notice the 
controversy upon the subject of perfection in the 
Romish Church between the Jansenists and the 
Jesuits. This could be well dispensed with, as we 
have as liftle fellowship for the notions of one party 
as we have for those of the other, were it not for 
the fact that Jansenius is sometimes quoted by our 
opponents as a model of orthodoxy, and our views 
represented as corresponding with those of the true 
disciples of Loyola. We have a specimen of the use 
made of this controversy by a certain class of writers, 
in the Christian Review 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


125 


The learned editor tells us that the doctrine of 
Christian perfection “ seems to have been taken under 
the special patronage of the followers of Loyola, one 
of the most virulent and indefatigable enemies of the 
Reformation and that “ Bellarmin did not hesitate to 
declare, that by our own merits we might not only sat¬ 
isfy the law, but make God our debtor. But there 
were a few who could not receive a sentiment so gross 
and impious. Jansenius, the founder of the order 
which bore his name, and a bold defender of the senti¬ 
ments of Augustine, maintained that it was impossible 
for believers to fulfill, in every particular, the divine law. 
It may be recollected also, that this was one of the 
points in dispute between the Jansenists and the 
Jesuists, to which Pascal alludes in his Provincial 
Letters, where he raises his powerful pen to make the 
whole Jesuit fraternity the scorn and laughing-stock 
of Europe.”— Chris. Rev ., Jan., 1842. 

And what if Pascal succeeded in making “ the 
whole Jesuit fraternity the scorn and laughing-stock 
of Europe ?” The legal perfection , or, to speak more 
properly, the superlegal perfection of the Jesuits is an 
entirely different matter from that Christian perfection 
held by evangelical Arminians. The Jansenists, and 
with them “ the polished and elegant scholars of Port 
Royal,” also had their foibles. One of their tenets is, 
that “ the saints are the only lawful proprietors of the 
world, and that the wicked have no right, by the divine 
law, to those things which they possess justly, in con¬ 
sequence of the decisions of human law.” And ano¬ 
ther, that “ the man prays best, who neither thinks nor 
acts in that act of devotion.” And the abbot of St. 
Cyran, a leader of the fraternity, taught that lie 
was “ the residence of the Deity, the instrument 


126 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


of the Godhead, by which the divine nature itself 
operated.”* 

Now, although the reviewer above quoted bestows 
high praise upon Jansenius, and upon “the polished 
and elegant scholars of Port Royal,” it would be 
scarcely fair to father upon him all the superstitious 
fooleries of the Jansenists, or to conclude that, be¬ 
cause there is a strong resemblance between the no¬ 
tions of the bishop of Ypres and those of the reviewer 
on the subject of perfect conformity to the law, 
therefore to him is to be attached the odium of all the 
said bishop’s fanaticism. But let it be remarked here, 
that perfectionists have not been the only fanatics with 
which the church has been cursed. And also, that on 
the merits of penance, the very foundation of Romish 
perfectionism, the Jansenists were, if possible, more ex¬ 
plicit than the Jesuits themselves. 

What, then, have we to do with a system of perfec¬ 
tion which consists in voluntary sufferings, vows of 
celibacy, perpetual poverty, and the whole train of 
nonsensical whims, idolatrous rites, and heathenish 
corruptions of Romanism ? What candour or courtesy 
is there in running the views of Christian perfection 
entertained by Mr. Wesley into those of “ the followers 
of Loyola,” as though there was a natural relationship 
between them ? If writers upon this subject were not 
quite so much disposed to deal in generalities, it would 
be much better. If they would take the pains to bear 
in mind, and to keep before their readers, the fact that 
the term perfection is used by different sectaries in 
widely different senses, they would not so constantly 
blind them with false views, and subject themselves to 
the charge of disingenuousness. 

* See Wesley’s Eccles. Hist., vol. iv, pp. 44-55. Also Murdock's 
Mosheim, vol. iii, pp. 332, 335, 487. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


127 


The simple doctrine of perfect love is as far from 
every species of will-worship, as it is from fanaticism. 
The fact that it has been accused of both, is nothing 
against its truth and divine origin. Christ was called 
Beelzebub, and the doctrine of justification by faith 
alone, as taught by St. Paul, was accused with being 
destructive of the law, and of all morality. The false 
analogies and unsound reasoning of the enemies of 
truth, often bring upon it a tide of prejudice, and 
cause the weak to stumble. But it is the part of wis¬ 
dom to analyze and test every objection brought 
against the truth, as it is in Christ Jesus; and never 
to abandon it merely because it is called by an ill 
name, or forced into unnatural associations. Various 
theories of Christian perfection have been maintained, 
in different ages of the church, which are totally unlike 
each other, and wholly irreconcilable. We have no 
sort of fellowship with the perfectionism of Rome, nor 
of the fanatics either of ancient or modern times 
Our theory is that of Christ and his holy apostles; 
built upon the Rock of ages, and standing up in all the 
fair proportions of revealed truth. The experimental 
and practical reality of Christian perfection is a monu¬ 
ment of the mighty grace of God, in and through Jesus 
Christ; and constitutes its highest and most glorious 
achievement this side of the heavenly world. Let it 
but be properly understood, and it is found to possess 
none of those ugly features which are often attributed 
to it by its mistaken opponents. 


128 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


LECTURE VII. 

CONTROVERSIES-CONTINUED. 

“ To the law and to the testimony.” Isa. viii, 20. 

Early in the seventeenth century the great doctrinal 
questions of predestination, election, free-will, &c., be¬ 
gan to be discussed with warmth in the Belgic churches. 
The doctrines of Calvin and Beza on these points had 
made extensive inroads among these churches, and 
their formularies of faith had become moulded accord¬ 
ingly. These doctrines were called into question first 
by several divines at Delft, and James Arminius, be¬ 
coming a convert to their views, finally raised strong 
opposition to what was claimed to be the orthodox doc¬ 
trine of the Reformed churches of the Belgic provinces. 
Efforts being made to procure an official condemnation 
of the views of Arminius and his coadjutors, they pre 
sented to the states of Holland and West Friesland a 
memorial, bearing the name of a Remonstrance , which 
procured for them the name of Remonstrants. In this 
Remonstrance they presented their views upon the dis¬ 
puted topics in five articles, first stating the doctrines 
they rejected, and then those which they maintained.* 

The doctrines of these articles were finally con¬ 
demned by the famous synod of Dort, and the Remon¬ 
strants banished the United Provinces. 

The Reformed, as the contra-Remonstrants were 
called, must now make the world believe that this sen¬ 
tence was just; and not being able to make so clear 

* These articles may be consulted in the Memoirs of Simon Epis. 
copius, by Frederick Calder, published and on sale at the Methodist 
Book Room, pp. 106-108. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


129 


a case as was to them desirable, predicated upon the 
published assertions of the Remonstrants, they charged 
upon them sundry grievous heresies not embraced in 
“the five articles, or points ,” as they were called. 
They were represented as Socinians, materialists, 
and what not. To invalidate these allegations, Epis- 
copius drew up a confession of faith f which was 
approved and signed by his brethren and companions 
in suffering. There is nothing, either in the five arti¬ 
cles or the confession, upon the subject of Christian 
perfection. 

In a conference appointed by the states to be held 
between the Remonstrants and the contra-Remon- 
strants, Gomarus charged the Remonstrants with hold¬ 
ing, besides the errors of the five articles, several other 
grievous heresies, among which was “ the perfection 
of man in this life.”t But it is a little remarkable, con¬ 
sidering the latitude taken by the synod of Dort in 
“ the rejection of errors,” that no notice is taken in the 
acts of that body of the error of perfection. The first 
section of chap, x, “ concerning the perseverance of 
the saints,” simply assumes the perpetual existence of 
“ the body of sin” “ in this life,” in “ those whom God, 
according to his purpose, calleth to the fellowship of 
his Son.” Upon this article Dr. Scott, the learned 
translator, gives us Art. xxix of the Belgic confession, 
which, because of its singular inappropriateness to his 
purpose, and consistency with the doctrine of evangeli¬ 
cal perfection, I will here insert. 

“They who constitute the true church; such a 
mark of them is the faith by which Christ, or their only 

* See the Appendix to Memoirs of Episcopius. 

t See the Articles of the Synod of Dort, translated from the Latin, 
with notes, by Rev. Thomas Scott, D.D., &c. Philadelphia. Presby¬ 
terian Board of Publication, No. 78. Pp. 146, 147. 

9 


130 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Saviour, being apprehended, they flee from sin, and 
follow after righteousness ; at the same time they love 
the true God and their neighbours, neither turning 
aside to the right hand nor to the left: they crucify the 
flesh, with its affections ; but by no means this indeed, 
as if there were not in them any longer infirmity : but 
that they fight against it through the whole time of 
their life, by the energy ( virtutem ) of the Holy Spirit; 
and in the mean time they flee to the blood, the death, 
and the sufferings and obedience of our Lord Christ, 
as to their most safe protection.” 

Now let the reader mark these words : “ They love 
the true God and their neighbours, neither turning 
aside to the right hand nor to the left: they crucify 
the fleshy with its affections; but by no means this in¬ 
deed, as if there were not in them any longer infirmi¬ 
ty. ” This is quite good Wesleyan theology!—But 
the good doctor, lest it should not be considered truly 
confirmatory of the notion of the continued existence 
of “ the body of sin ” in believers, makes reference to 
several scriptures, such as Rom. vii, &c., to the ninth 
article of the Church of England, and adds the follow 
ing pertinent (?) remark :— 

“ The Remonstrants, or Arminians of those days, 
held, it seems, the doctrine of sinless perfection in this 
life more generally than anti-Calvinists do at present.” 

Now is it not remarkable that the synod .did not dis¬ 
tinctly and explicitly condemn this “doctrine of sin¬ 
less perfection,” so “ generally held” by “ the Re¬ 
monstrants ?” If the Remonstrants so generally held 
this obnoxious doctrine, it must have been in their 
books; and we are told by Mr. Hales that a large 
number of these books were laid upon the table for the 
purpose of furnishing the synod materials to work upon. 
And in his letter of January 6, he says, “They are 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


131 


all together in consultation concerning their order of 
proceeding, and in gathering materials out of the Re¬ 
monstrants’ books, where they may frame their theses 
and propositions, which must be the subject of their 
disputation.*’* 

The course of the synod in settling a point was first 
to set down and confirm what they considered the true 
view, and then to proceed to “ the rejection of errors” 
on the same point. The condemned errors in the 
“ Articles of the Synod of Dort” are marked as quota¬ 
tions, but no reference made to book or author; but it 
may be fairly concluded the synod intended to be un¬ 
derstood as quoting the language of the Remonstrants. 
Their quotations may be faithful, but it would have 
been a gratification to some who may wish to judge of 
the language in its connection, to know who was its 
author, and where it might be found. It seems, ac 
cording to Dr. Scott, that these errorists “held the 
doctrine of sinless perfection in this life more generally 
than anti-Calvinists do at this day,” and yet it would 
seem, from the fact that the synod said nothing about 
it, either that it was not to be found in their books, or 
if there, was not an error of sufficient magnitude to call 
for the condemnation of the synod. Why did not the 
synod carry out its plan upon this point, and after 
affirming that the saints are “ not entirely in this life 
set free from the flesh and the body of sin,” proceed, in 
“ the rejection of errors,” to quote, from the Remon¬ 
strants some such language as this : “ Men may and 
often do attain to sinless perfection in this life ?” I 
leave the doubt for others to solve; and until I have 

* See Golden Remains of the ever-memorable Mr. John Hales, of 
Eaton College, &c., with additions from the author’s own copy, viz., 
Sermons and Miscellanies. Also Letters and Expresses concerning 
the Synod of Dort. London. 1678. Pp. 460, 461. 


132 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


further light upon the subject, shall entertain the im¬ 
pression that Dr. Scott was not so fully informed as to 
what the “ Remonstrants or Arminians of. those days,” 
or the “ anti-Calvinists” of his own time, really held, 
touching “ sinless perfection in this life,” as he might 
have been. 

I shall now proceed to show what were the views of 
the Remonstrants upon the subject of Christian per¬ 
fection. 

We have already seen that Arminius and his coad 
jutors were charged by Gomarus with holding “the 
perfection of men in this life.” This charge called 
forth from Arminius a specific statement of his Views, 
in which, it seems, he did not profess to differ from 
the earlier and more sober views of Augustine upon 
the subject. He says,— 

“ Besides those things of which I have already spoken, 
much has often been said concerning the perfection of 
believers, or the regenerate, in this life, and it is re¬ 
ported that I hold views on this subject which are im¬ 
proper, and almost the same as those of the Pelagians, 
viz., that the regenerate can in this life perfectly ob¬ 
serve the precepts of God. To this I reply, that I 
ought not, on this account, to be considered either par¬ 
tially or wholly a Pelagian, even if I held this view ; 
provided that I should make this addition,—that they 
could do this by the grace' of Christ, but by no means 
without it. Yet I have never said that the believer 
can in this life perfectly observe the precepts of Christ, 
nor have I ever denied it, but have left it entirely un¬ 
determined, resting satisfied with what Augustine says 
on this subject, whose words I have often quoted in the 
university, with the remark, that I had nothing more to 
add to them. 

“ They are these :—There are four questions which 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 133 

I 

may be attended to in this matter. The first is, Whe¬ 
ther there ever was any man without sin, or one who, 
from the beginning of his life even to its end, did not 
transgress? The second is, Whether there ever has been, 
or now is, or can be, one who does not sin; that is, 
one who has attained to such perfection in this life, the. 
he does not commit sin, but perfectly fulfils the law 
of God ? The third is, Whether it may be possible 
that a man should, in this life, be free from sin ? The 
fourth is, If a man can be free from sin, why is such a 
one never found? To the first, Augustine answers, 
that there never was, or will be, such a man, except 
Jesus Christ. To the second, that he does not think 
that any man has ever attained to such perfection in 
this life. To the third, that a man could be such by 
the grace of Christ, and his own free will. To the 
fourth, that man does not that, which he could do 
through the grace of Christ, either because that which 
is good is hidden from him, or because he takes no 
delight in it. 

“ From this it appears that Augustine himself, who 
was the most strenuous opponent of the Pelagian doc¬ 
trine, was yet of this opinion, that a man could, by the 
grace of Christ, be without sin in this life. And in¬ 
deed Augustine says : 1 Let Pelagius admit that man 
can be without sin, but only through the grace of 
Christ, and there will be peace between us.’ But it 
seemed to Augustine to be the sentiment of Pelagius, 
that man could indeed keep the law of God by his own 
strength, but more easily by the grace of Christ. But 
how far I am from this opinion I have already suffi¬ 
ciently, and more than sufficiently shown; yet I will 
say this in addition, that I consider this opinion of Pe¬ 
lagius heretical, and that it opposes diametrically the 
words of Christ, ‘ Without me ye can do nothing,’ 


134 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP 


(John xv, 5,) and that it is pernicious, and inflicts the 
deepest injury on the glory of Christ.”* 

The following account of the opinions of Episcopius, 
the eloquent successor of Arminius in the divinity chair 
of the university of Leyden, is taken from his answer 
to the nineteenth question proposed to him by his pupils 
in private disputations at Amsterdam :— 

“ Quest. 19. ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your 
Father which is in heaven is perfect,’ Matt, v, 48. 
The question is, ‘ What should be understood here by 
the word perfect ? Is it that we should perfectly keep 
the commands of God and Christ without any sin, 
(except those sins which preceded conversion ?) But 
if so, whether this is necessary for attaining to the life 
of the blessed.’ * 

“ Embracing the opportunity afforded by this ques¬ 
tion, I wish also to answer another—‘ Whether a man, 
assisted by divine grace, can keep all the commands 
of God, eten to a perfect fulfilment; that is, using the 
word love in a general manner for keeping the com 
mandments, whether he can love as much as he ought 
to love according to the requirement of the gospel, or 
according to the covenant of grace ?’ I, indeed, have 
no doubt on this point. My reasons are these :—* 
1st. God demands no other love than that which is 
rendered by the whole mind, the whole heart, and all 
the strength. Therefore he demands nothing beyond 
or above the strength. 2d. God promises that he will 
circumcise the heart of his people, that they may love 

* See “Declaration of Sentiments,” Works, p. 99.—This extract 
is taken from a translation of the Works of Arminius, now in progress 
by a competent hand. An English translation of the complete Works 
of Arminius has long been a desideratum; and I most earnestly hope 
the gentleman now engaged in executing this work, and who has so 
kindly permitted me to make use of his manuscript, will, at no dis¬ 
tant date, have it ready for the press. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


135 


him with their whole heart and mind. Deut. xxx, 6. 
3d. God himself testifies that there have been those 
who have kept all his commands all the days of their 
life with their whole mind, and heart, and strength, 
and this in the sight of God : as we may read of Asa, 
1 Kings xv, 14; of the whole people, 2 Chron. xv, 12; 
of David, 1 Kings xi, 34, and xiv, 8, and xv, 11; of 
Josiah, 2 Kings xxii, 2, that he ‘turned to the Lord 
with all his heart, and with all his soul, and might, ac¬ 
cording to all the law of Moses,’ 2 Kings xxiii, 25. 
And we read that these things were attributed to them 
by God under the old covenant. Who, then, can doubt 
that the same thing can have place in the new covenant ? 

“ The common distinction between a perfection of 
parts and one of degrees requires explanation. For if 
by a perfection of degrees is meant the highest perfec¬ 
tion, or that which exists in the highest degree in such 
a sense that it is equal to the divine perfection, and 
can neither increase nor be augmented, then it is cer¬ 
tain that it is impossible on the earth. For no man 
rises to the degree of the divine perfection, and it is 
the nature of love that it should always wish to pro¬ 
gress ; nor does it even think of what has already been 
accomplished, but of what remains to be done. But 
if by a perfection of degrees is understood that highest 
perfection which consists in the highest exertion of 
human strength assisted by grace, and which is joined 
with the purpose of making continual progress in pro¬ 
portion to his increased strength, then I believe that 
there is no reason why it should be said to be impos¬ 
sible to man on the earth. Indeed, there is the justest 
reason that the opinion that this is impossible should 
be ranked among the most dangerous, and be consi¬ 
dered the pillow of security. 

“You ask whether the highest perfection in this 


136 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


sense is absolutely necessary to salvation ? Answer 
The highest evangelical perfection (for we are noi 
treating of a legal perfection, which includes sinless¬ 
ness entire in all respects and in the highest degree, 
even that which is perpetual, and excludes all imper¬ 
fection, infirmity, and inadvertency through the whole 
life, for this we believe to be impossible) embraces 
two things:—1st. A perfection proportioned to the 
powers of each individual; 2d. A desire of making 
continual progress, and of increasing one’s strength 
more and more. This perfection varies in respect to 
beginners, proficients, and those perfect in the know¬ 
ledge of the divine truth, and of that love which is 
required of us : for which reason there is one perfec¬ 
tion higher than another, or the perfection of some is 
higher than the perfection of others. The perfection 
of all and each, or in all and each, is not, and cannot 
be the same. Yet the highest degree of perfection 
of all and each, in proportion to the unequal strength 
of all and each, is necessary for salvation: which per¬ 
fection we place in this, that no one omit or commit 
that which he knows that he should not, but can omit 
or commit; that is, that no one sin against his con¬ 
science, whatever it may be. The latter, that is, the 
desire of making continual progress, is common to all, 
and this should therefore be similar and equal in all 
and each in proportion to the strength of each; and is 
absolutely necessary for salvation, and ought both to 
precede penitence and to follow all penitence, as can 
be proved by very many testimonies of Scripture, to 
bring forward which is not a part. of my purpose at 
this time, nor does it belong to this school.” 

The learned Limborch gives us the following ac¬ 
count of his views upon the subject:— 

"The possibility of keeping the commandments of 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


137 


our Saviour is taken for granted by what has been said 
of the necessity thereof; since things necessary must 
be observed, but impossibilities cannot. But for the 
due discussing of this point, the state of the question 
ought in the first place to be laid down. 

“ There is a threefold opinion at present concerning 
the possibility of observing the precepts of Christ by 
the assistance of God’s grace : for as to the opinion 
of Pelagius, that a man might by his own strength 
Culfil the whole law of God, we shall say nothing 
about it, since ’tis at present exploded by all men, and 
lias no one advocate that we know of. The first opi¬ 
nion, then, which we shall mention, is that of those 
who maintain, that a man may, by the grace of God, 
arrive to such a degree of perfection, as not to be 
tempted to sin by any, even the-first motion of concu¬ 
piscence ; or be affected with any love to the creature, 
so as to love God for his own sake only, without any 
regard had to a reward. A second opinion is that of 
those persons who tell us, that the law of God requires 
of man an obedience altogether perfect, as to its parts, 
duration, and degree, by the merit of which he may 
attain eternal life : but that man, by our first parents’ 
transgression, imputed to all his posterity, is rendered 
incapable of fulfilling the law, and therefore finds his 
own righteousness in the righteousness of Christ, who 
did fulfil the law: that therefore a man cannot keep 
the commandments of God, even though he be assisted 
by the grace of God, and regenerated by the Spirit of 
Christ; but that all his perfection consists in a com¬ 
placency in, and a resolution of perfection, and in a 
constant acknowledgment of our imperfection, with an 
expectation of being rendered perfect in the world to 
come. The middle opinion between these two extremes 
is our ( wn, viz., that a man may, by the assistance of 


138 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


God’s grace, keep the precepts commanded in the 
gospel, after such a manner, and in such a degree of 
perfection, as God requires of us under the denuncia¬ 
tion of eternal damnation. The two first opinions run 
counter to each other; the one makes the way to eter¬ 
nal life too narrow, the other too broad ; the one would 
have us endued with that perfection which is only to 
be had in die other world, while the other puts off to 
that time the perfection which we may here obtain. 

“We have no need to labour much at the refuting 
the first opinion, since its own absurdity is enough to 
overthrow it. They would have a man to be free from 
the least temptation to sin, even from the very first 
motions of concupiscence, which are natural and un¬ 
avoidable : and they believe it to be unlawful to obey 
God in hopes of a reward; which may move some 
persons to despair, and takes off that motive to obe¬ 
dience which God himself is pleased to prescribe to 
us. For the love of any good cannot be eradicated, 
but by the expectance and love of a contrary good ; nor 
can the love of earthly and sensual objects be removed, 
but by our love of spiritual and heavenly things. 

“ All then that we need to do, is fairly to state the 
controversy between the second and third opinions; 
which seems wholly to turn upon these two main ques¬ 
tions : (1.) Whether the law of God, even according 
to the gospel, requires of a man a perfect and absolute 
obedience, which shall not be subject to the least fail¬ 
ing ? Or whether God, as a tender Father, may not use 
some indulgence, and abate of the rigour of the law ? 
(2.) Whether a man can observe and perform the law 
as he is required in the gospel ? Or whether he can 
only discharge the beginnings of obedience, his rege¬ 
neration beginning in this life, and consummated in the 
next? Now, whoever duly considers each branch of 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


)39 


mis matter in dispute, will perceive that there is not 
much difference between these two opposite opinions, 
and that it lies more in the circumstances than in the 
thing itself. But whereas the whole controversy can¬ 
not be so easily adjusted as could be wished, it will not 
be improper to treat a little more particularly about it. 

“ As to the first question, then, we say, that God in 
the gospel does not exact such a strict, perfect, abso¬ 
lute, and sinless obedience, as to threaten destruction 
and eternal damnation to all those who shall be guilty 
of any the least offence: but that he treats us like an 
indulgent father; and though he does not approve of 
the failings of the faithful, yet he is graciously pleased 
to forgive them to those who sincerely seek him and 
repent of their sins. For God under the new covenant 
requires repentance, and not a sinless obedience, upon 
which he promises remission of sins. Now repentance 
presupposes sin, nor does it for the future wholly ex¬ 
clude the committing all acts of sin, since a vicious 
habit cannot be conquered in a moment: 4 and hence 
the man, especially in his entrance on a Christian state, 
is subject to relapses ; against which, if he makes con¬ 
tinual struggles, he will by degrees master them, and 
make every day a further progress in a religious course. 

“ However, there are many objections started by 
men of the contrary opinion, which we shall consider 
and answer. First, they object that God is perfectly 
just, and consequently cannot allow of any other right¬ 
eousness but what is altogether perfect. Answ. (1.) 
God is indeed just, but withal an absolute sovereign, 
subject to no superior being; therefore he may recede 
from his right, and not rigidly exact whatever he might 
in justice require, but prescribe a law mixed with some 
grace and indulgence. (2.) The obedience which God 
requires under the denunciation of everlasting punish 


140 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


ment is perfect, as being correspondent to the stipma 
tion contained in the divine covenant; without per¬ 
forming of which a man cannot obtain salvation : but 
if the man performs it, God, as a righteous judge, with¬ 
out any violation of his justice, may, and really will, 
adjudge salvation to him. 

“ Secondly. They say, the law requires such an 
obedience as was due from man before the fall, that 
is, an entirely perfect one ; since it requires obedience 
with all the strength, viz., such a strength as man had 
in his state of innocence. Answ. From whence does 
it appear, that when God requires obedience with all 
our strength, he means such an ability as man was 
endued with before the fall ? This is therefore said 
gratis, and without any manner of proof: nay, this 
would be repugnant to the righteousness and justice 
of God, if he should require obedience proportionable 
to that strength which our first parent, and with him 
(according to their tenets) all his posterity, lost by the 
fall, and which God never restored to them. This 
would look as oddly as it would in a prince to demand 
a grandson to maintain such a number of troops with 
his estate, of which that prince had before deprived 
his grandfather. 

“ Again they object, that Christ commands us to be 
perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect. Answ. 
They will not venture surely to assert that here is any 
equality, but only a likeness of perfection prescribed, 
viz., that we should sincerely endeavour after holiness, 
even as God himself is holy. Whosoever, then, does 
heartily forsake his sins, and is ready to obey God in 
all things that he does or can know to be his duty, is 
perfect as God is perfect. 

“ As to the second question, in order to the due 
stating thereof we say, that the same degree of obe- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


141 


dience which we showed to be necessary to salvation, 
is also possible for a faithful and regenerate naan to 
perform, viz., not a sinless or absolutely perfect obe¬ 
dience, but such as consists in a sincere love and habit 
of piety, which excludes all habit of sin, with all enor¬ 
mous and deliberate actions. But since there are three 
degrees of regenerate persons, viz., beginners, who 
sincerely repent of their sins, though the struggling 
against them is somewhat difficult; proficients, who 
with less trouble and greater alacrity resist sin ; and 
perfect persons, who have already subdued the habit 
of sin, and take a delight in the practice of virtue: 
we think it proper to explain our opinion a little more 
distinctly. ’Tis plain that it is necessary for all men, 
in order to be partakers of everlasting salvation, that 
they should at least attain the first degree of regenera¬ 
tion, since without it there is no salvation. But if, 
after they have attained it, they should immediately 
die, no question but, according to the terms of the, 
gospel, they will be saved. But if their lives should 
be spared, they must aspire to the second, and so on to 
the third degree of regeneration ; since God requires 
the love of our whole man, which cannot be regular 
unless we proceed from one degree of perfection to 
another. For the maintaining of this our opinion we 
shall make use of the following arguments :—(1.) God 
requires an obedience to his commands, annexing 
salvation to the performance, and threatening eternal 
punishment to the non-performance of them ; therefore 
it is possible, for else God would be unjust in requiring 
impossibilities of men. (2.) The commandments of 
God are so far from being impossible, that they are 
denied to be grievous, (1 John, v, 3;) nay, our Lord 
himself assures us, that his yoke is easy, and his 
burden is light. Matt, xi, 30. (3 ) St. John assures 


142 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


us, that a regenerate man may arrive to such a degree 
of perfection, as not only not to sin, but even to be in¬ 
capable in some sort of sinning. 1 John iii, 9; v, 18. 
(4.) It is said of some in Scripture, that they are per 
feet. 1 Cor. ii, 6; Phil, iii, 15. (5.) The apostles 

themselves, in their epistles, frequently wish that the 
faithful might attain to perfection; (1 Thess. v, 23; 
Phil, i, 9-11 ; Col. i, 9, 10; Heb. xiii, 20, 21 ;) now 
these desires would have been to no purpose, had the 
apostles wished impossibilities. (6.) There are seve¬ 
ral instances mentioned in Scripture of persons who 
sought the Lord with their whole heart, and obeyed 
the Lord faithfully, such as David, (1 Kings xi, 34, and 
xiv, 8,) Asa, (1 Kings xv, 11; 2 Chron. xv, 17,) Josiah, 
(2 Kings xxii, 2; 2 Chron. xxxiv, 2,) Zacharias, and 
Elisabeth. Luke i, 6. (7.) And lastly, the contrary 

opinion is verv destructive of piety, and renders all our 
exhortations to it insignificant. 

“ But now let us hear what the maintainers of the 
contrary opinion have to say for themselves. In the 
first place, then, they tell us, that there are some re¬ 
mains of unregeneracy even in a regenerate man, viz., 
the flesh with the affections and lusts, which always 
war against the Spirit, and every now and then draw 
the man into sin. But having elsewhere refuted this 
argument, we shall not insist upon it here. 

“ Again they say, that no man does keep the com¬ 
mandments of God, from whence they infer that they 
cannot be kept by men ; since if they could, it is hardly 
credible, that not one man could be found who had not 
done it. Answ. It is one thing not to be free from sin, 
and another frequently and daily to fall into sin after 
repentance. They, indeed, who have indulged them¬ 
selves in sin before repentance, are truly said not to be 
free from sin; but daily to commit enormous crimes 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


143 


after repentance is contrary to regeneration. Besides, 
we do not say that a man can live blameless without 
falling into any sin, since our human infirmity is such 
as not to allow of such a sinless perfection; but this 
we do assert, that we ought to proceed in a Christian 
course, to amend our failings, to watch against tempta¬ 
tions, till at last we arrive to perfection, and by the 
grace of God attain everlasting life. 

“ The last objection we shall mention is, that God 
requires us to love him with all our hearts and with 
all our strength : but this, say they, we cannot do. 
Ansio. Forasmuch as God requires that we should love 
him, not above, but with all our strength, it is evident 
that nothing exceeding our abilities is required at our 
hands. That this may appear the more distinctly, ’tis 
to be noted, that ‘ the love of God consists in obeying 
his commands,’ 1 John v, 3. Therefore, if a hearty 
obedience be paid to the divine commands, God also 
is loved with all the heart and with all the strength. 
The sincerity and integrity of love, then, is here com¬ 
manded, and that love is sincere which proceeds from 
a heart unfeigned, and is not divided or interrupted by 
any intervening sins. But this is not out of a man’s 
power to perform.”* 

It may be necessary, before we pass, to make a few 
notes upon the foregoing extracts. The views of Ar- 
minius upon Christian perfection seem to be rather in 
a transition state. The same was the fact in relation 
to the defectability of the saints. Upon this point, in 
the declaration of his sentiments to the states of Hol¬ 
land, he says, “ I declare, very frankly, that I have 
never taught that a true believer will finally and totally 
fall away and perish; although I do not deny that 

* See English translation of Limborch’s Theologia Christiania, 
hook v, chap, xxv, sec. 2. 


144 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


there are texts of Scripture which seem to favour this 
sentiment, and which I have not seen answered in any 
way to my entire satisfaction; while, on the other hand, 
there are some of an opposite character which deserve 
attentive consideration.” The recovery of truth, after 
it has been long forgotten, or discredited, is generally 
progressive. And it often happens that the mind that 
grasps its great leading features, leaves it to others to 
follow out the details. Thus it was in the revival of 
sound Scripture views of the plan of salvation in the 
Low Countries. Arminius led the way, and laid the 
foundation for the system of theology which was sys¬ 
tematized and settled in its details by Episcopius, Cir- 
cellius, and Limborch. And hence, though Arminius 
says nothing confidently as to the possibility of total 
apostacy from the favour of God, the Remonstrants 
subsequently settled upon w r hat we conceive the true 
ground. In the fifth article of their confession it is 
asserted, that “it is possible for true believers to fall 
away from the true faith, and to fall into sins of such a 
description as cannot consist with a true and justifying 
faith ; nor is it only possible for them thus to fall, but 
such lapses frequently occur.” 

The same progressive development is to be remarked 
upon the subject of Christian perfection. Professor 
Stuart, after giving an abstract of the passage which I 
have given at length, remarks as follows :—“ It would 
seem from this, that in theory Arminius held to the 
ability of a regenerate man to keep the law of God per¬ 
fectly when assisted by divine grace ; but as a matter 
of fact, he did not maintain that any did thus keep it.”* 

I think this a stronger inference than the language 
of Armini is warrants. He simply says : “ I ought not, 

* Creed of Arminius: with a brief Sketch of his Life and Times, 
Biblical Repository, vol. i, p. 273. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


145 


on this account, to be considered either partially or 
wholly a Pelagian, even if I held this view; provided 
that I should make this condition—that they could do 
this by the grace of Christ, but by no means without it. 
Yet I have never said that the believer can in this life 
perfectly observe the precepts of Christ, nor have I 
ever denied it, but have left it entirely undetermined.” 
It is consequently more than is warranted, if it be not 
directly contradicting the words of Arminius, to say 
that he “ held to the ability of a regenerate man to keep 
the law of God perfectly,” when all he says is, that he 
has “ never said,” nor “ denied it,” but leaves it “ en¬ 
tirely undetermined.” 

There would seem, at first blush, some likeness be¬ 
tween the views of Arminius and those of Dr. Woods, 
but, upon a little examination, it will appear that there 
is a radical difference between them in two respects :— 
1. Arminius does not positively assert that it is pos¬ 
sible for a Christian perfectly to keep the law, but 
leaves it doubtful; whereas Dr. Woods positively de¬ 
clares that it is possible, and that this is the sense of 
evangelical divines generally. 2. Arminius left the 
fact , whether any ever had attained to this state of 
perfection, equally in doubt; whereas the Andover 
professor peremptorily denies the fact. The views of 
Dr. Woods will hereafter be fully discussed. 

Of the systematic statement of the doctrine of Chris¬ 
tian perfection by Episcopius and Limborch it is not 
necessary to say much ; a few remarks may, however, 
be necessary:—1. These acute theologians make a 
clear distinction between the law and the gospel—or 
between the covenant of works and the covenant of 
grace. The perfection for which they contend is to be 
graded “ according to the requirements of the gospel, or 
according to the covenant of grace”—or “ the law of 


146 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


God according to the gospel.” This principle is fun¬ 
damental in the evangelical system of perfection. 

2. The scriptures these authors quote are in some in¬ 
stances rather too rigidly interpreted. They must be 
understood as somewhat modified by their connections. 

3. There is a little indefiniteness upon the point of the 
necessity of this perfection to salvation. The views 
of Mr. Wesley are much more specific and consistent, 
viz., That we must either be in the possession of this 
high state of grace, or he pressing after it, if we would 
retain the favour of God, and be certain of heaven. 

4. It is by no means necessary to plead the divine 
prerogatives to justify the change of the covenants or 
their conditions. I know “ God is a sovereign, sub¬ 
ject to no superior beingand that “ he may recede 
from his right, and not rigidly exact whatever he might 
in justice require, but prescribe a law mixed with some 
grace and indulgence.” This is conceded—all this 
God might do, should he see proper, and did the neces¬ 
sity of the case require it. But does not this supposi¬ 
tion too much lose sight of the compensative character 
of the great atonement ? It should never be forgotten 
that Christ, by his sacrificial death, has “ magnified the 
law and made it honourable”—has “ brought in ever¬ 
lasting righteousness”—so that “God may be just , 
and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” 
In making the terms of salvation practicable to the 
sinner, by the atonement, the claims of justice are so 
met that God recedes from no right. Still it must be 
obvious that in providing the means of salvation—in 
making the provisions, and fixing, the terms—God does 
act wholly as “ an absolute sovereign.” His own arm 
wrought the deliverance: but it is brought about in 
such a way as to sustain the righteousness of his 
government. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


147 


Were it consistent, I would here speak at length of 
the orthodoxy of the Remonstrants, but I can only 
say a very few words upon the subject. Professor 
Stuart has rendered great service to the cause of 
truth in his discussion of the opinions of Arminius. 
He acknowledges him perfectly orthodox upon the 
great doctrines bf “the divine inspiration, the entire 
sufficiency, and the paramount authority of the Scrip¬ 
tures,”—“the trinity ”—“total depravity”—“ the vica¬ 
rious sacrifice and atonement of Christ”—“justifi¬ 
cation by grace alone through faith in Christ”—“ rege¬ 
neration by the special and supernatural influences of 
the Holy Spiritand that “ on the doctrine of decrees 
only does he appear to have been*?t open war with 
some of his brethren, especially with Gomar, his col¬ 
league.” For these fair and honest declarations the 
professor has been taken severely to task by several 
of his brethren.* But these gentlemen must falsify 
history to make good their charges, either against Ar- 
minius, or against his learned defender. 

* See Murdock’s Mosheim, vol. iii, pp. 508, 509; and Dr. Miller’s 
Introductory Essay to the Articles of the Synod of Dort, pp. 19-21. 
See also the “ Arminian Controversy in the Low Countries,” trans¬ 
lated from the learned Limborch. Methodist Quarterly for July 
and October, 1844, in which the errors of the learned doctors, above 
referred to, are fully refuted by clear historical facts, fully authen¬ 
ticated. 


148 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


LECTURE VIII. 

CONTROVERSIES-CONTINUED. 

“ To the law and to the testimony.” I$a. vin,’ 20. 

I shall now notice the controversy upon the subject 
of Christian perfection in which Messrs. Wesley and 
Fletcher took a part. I have, on a former occasion, 
given from their Works a statement of the doctrine as 
held by these writers. To give their arguments in 
extenso will not export with my design, as I wish not, 
were I able, to supersede the standard writings of these 
great authors upon this subject. A few specimens, 
however, of the positions and arguments pro and con 
will be attempted. 

Mr. Wesley asserted a qualified perfection, attaina¬ 
ble in this life; and for the benefit of those who felt 
disposed to look at the question practically, he caused 
the views, which, after due discussion, were settled 
upon in the conferences, to be entered upon the minutes 
and published. These, with further explanations, but 
no essential alterations, he digested in a tract, entitled, 
“A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” This, 
with several sermons upon the subject, and Mr. 
Fletcher’s “ Last Check to Antinomianism,” consti¬ 
tute the standards of the Wesleyan Methodists upon 
the subject of Christian perfection. From these 
sources a complete history of the controversy may 
be gathered. 

As a matter of course, “ this new doctrine,” as it was 
called, was violently opposed by the Calvinists, both in 
the Establishment and among the Dissenters, and also 
by the pharisaic semi-Pelagians of the age. By one 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


149 


class it was condemned as heresy, and by the other 
denounced as fanaticism. John Wesley was indeed 
set up at once as a Pelagian, a Papist, a Ranter, and 
what not. He was charged with heresies the most fla¬ 
grant and contradictory : but still his fanaticism was so 
much like the spirit of the apostles, and his heresy so 
well sustained by sound philosophy and good logic, that 
his system won its way in spite of the most formidable 
opposition. 

I will here furnish a few specimens of the true'posi¬ 
tion occupied by Mr. Wesley’s opponents, and the 
manner in which they prosecuted the controversy 
against him. 

Mr. Toplady, in his “ Historic Proof of the Doctrinal 
Calvinism of the Church of England,” endeavours to 
trace the likeness between Mr. Wesley’s doctrine of 
Christian perfection and the “ Rantism” of former times. 
Having introduced an account from Strype of Anthony 
Randall, he makes several remarks in consecutive 
order, in some of which he contrasts Mr. Wesley with 
the “Ranter,” and in others draws a parallel between 
them. His fourth and fifth remarks are as fol¬ 
lows :— 

“ 4. He [Randall] was an avowed perfectionist: 
and, 5. Was a most uncharitable bigot; else he had 
never affirmed that every one who preaches against his 
reigning doctrine of sinless perfection, knows nothing 
of God, or of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit. Who, on 
this occasion, can help thinking on Messrs. John Wes¬ 
ley and Walter Sellon ? I mean so far as concerns the 
tenet of perfection.”* 

Mr. Toplady takes his position in his own peculiar 
style, thus:—“ Such being the unrelaxing perfection 
which the law inflexibly requires, it necessarily follows 
* Works of Aug. Toplady, p 79. 


150 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


that the supposition of possible perfection on earth is 
the most fanatic dream, and the most gigantic delusion 
which can whirl the brain of a human being.”* 

This singular writer with as little truth as modesty- 
charges Mr. Wesley with Manicheanism. The follow¬ 
ing is an instance :— 

“ Poor Manes ! with how excellent a grace do Ar~ 
minians call thee a heretic ! And, above all, such Armi- 
nians (whereof Mr. John Wesley is one) as agree with 
thee in believing the attainability of sinless perfection 
here below ; or, to use the good old Manichean phrase, 
who assert that the evil principle may be totally sepa¬ 
rated from man in the present life.” 

This sweet-spirited writer continues : “ Mr. Wesley 
seems much displeased with a brace of gentlemen, 
whose names he has not communicated to the public ; 
but who appear, from his account of them, to be in no 
very fair way toward sinless perfection. One of these, 
we are told, delivered his mind to this effect: ‘ I fre¬ 
quently feel tempers, and speak many words, and do 
many actions, which I do not approve of; but I can¬ 
not avoid it. They result, whether I will or no, from 
the vibrations of my brain, together with the motion of 
my blood, and the flow of my animal spirits. But these 
are not in my own power. I cannot help them. They 
are independent on my choice.’ Thus far I totally 
agree with the gentleman unknown.”! 

Let these specimens of the logic, the courtesy, and 
the Christian charity with which Mr. Wesley was met, 
answer for the present. Others were less violent, but 
all who entered the lists against him on the subject of 
perfection seemed to consider the doctrine of the pos¬ 
sibility of loving God with all the heart in this life a 
grand corruption of the Christian doctrine, and the 
* Works of Aug. Toptady, p. 141. t Ibid., p. 816. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


151 


maintainers of it entitled to no other treatment than that 
to which the worst of heretics are entitled. 

The following extract from Mr. Fletcher will show 
more in detail the state of the question as it was then 
discussed, and the arguments employed on either side. 

“ I repeat it, if our pious opponents decry the doc¬ 
trine of Christian perfection, it is chiefly through mis¬ 
apprehension ; it being as natural for pious men to 
recommend exalted piety, as for covetous persons to 
extol great riches. And this misapprehension fre¬ 
quently springs from their inattention to the nature of 
Christian perfection. To prove it, I need only oppose 
our definition of Christian perfection to the objections 
which are most commonly raised against our doctrine. 

“I. ‘Your doctrine of perfection leads to pride.’ 
Impossible, if Christian perfection is perfect humility. 

“ II. ‘ It exalts believers ; but it is only to the state 
of the vainglorious Pharisee.’ Impossible. If our per¬ 
fection is perfect humility, it makes us sink deeper into 
the state of the humble, justified publican. 

“ III. ‘ It fills men with the conceit of their own 
excellence, and makes them say to a weak brother, 
“ Stand by, I am holier than thou.” ’ Impossible 
again. We do not preach pharisaic but Christian per¬ 
fection, which consists in perfect poverty of spirit, and 
in that perfect ‘ charity’ which ‘ vaunteth not itself, 
honours all men, and bears with the infirmities of the 
weak.’ 

“ IV. ‘It sets repentance aside.’ Impossible ; for it 
is perfect repentance. 

“ V. ‘ It will make us slight Christ.’ More and more 
improbable. How can perfect faith in Christ make us 
slight Christ ? Could it be more absurd to say, that the 
perfect love of God will make us despise God ? 

“ V]. ‘ It will supersede the use of mortification and 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


] 52 

watchfulness; for; if sin is dead, what need have we 
to mortify it, and to watch against it?’ 

“ This objection has some plausibility : I shall there¬ 
fore answer it various ways :—1. If Adam, in his state 
of paradisiacal perfection, needed perfect watchfulness 
and perfect mortification, how much more do we need 
them, who find ‘ the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil’ planted, not only in the midst of our gardens, but 
in the midst of our houses, markets, and churches ? 
2. When we are delivered from sin, are we delivered 
from peccability and temptation? When the inward 
man of sin is dead, is the devil dead ? is the corruption 
that is in the world destroyed ? and have we not still 
our five senses to ‘ keep with all diligence,’ as well as 
our * hearts,’ that the tempter may not enter into us, or 
that we may not enter into his temptations ? Lastly : 
Jesus Christ, as son of Mary, was a perfect man. But 
how was he kept so to the end ? Was it not by 1 keep¬ 
ing his mouth with a bridle, while the ungodly was in 
his sight,’ and by guarding all his senses with perfect 
assiduity, that the wicked one might not touch him to 
his hurt ? And if Christ our head kept his human per¬ 
fection only through watchfulness and constant self- 
denial, is it not absurd to suppose that his perfect mem¬ 
bers can keep their perfection without treading in his 
steps ? 

“VII. Another objection probably stands in Mr. 
Hill’s way: it runs thus :—‘Your doctrine of perfec¬ 
tion makes it needless for perfect Christians to say the 
Lord’s prayer. For if God “vouchsafes to keep ns 
this day without sin,” we shall have no need to pray at 
night that God would “ forgive us our trespasses, as 
we forgive them that trespass against us.” ’ 

“We answer: 1. Though a perfect Christian does 
not trespass voluntarily, and break the law of love ; yet 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 153 

he daily breaks the law of Adamic perfection, through 
the imperfection of his bodily and mental powers : and 
he has frequently a deeper sense of these involuntary 
trespasses than many weak believers have of their vol¬ 
untary breaches of the moral law. 2. Although a per¬ 
fect Christian has a witness that his sins are now for¬ 
given in the court of his conscience, yet he knows £ the 
terrors of the Lord ;’ he hastens to meet the awful day 
of God; he waits for the appearance of our Lord Jesus 
Christ in the character of a righteous Judge ; he keeps 
an eye to the awful tribunal, before which he must 
soon be justified or condemned by his words ; he is 
conscious that his final justification is not yet come ; 
and therefore he would think himself a monster of stu¬ 
pidity and pride, if, with an eye to his absolution in the 
great day, he scrupled saying, to the end of his life, 
‘Forgive us our trespasses.’ 3. He is surrounded 
with sinners, who daily ‘trespass against him,’ and 
whom he is daily bound to ‘ forgive ;’ and his praying 
that he may be forgiven now, and in the great day, ‘ as 
he forgives others,’ reminds him that he may forfeit his 
pardon, and binds him more and more to the perform¬ 
ance of the important duty of forgiving his enemies. 
And, 4. His charity is so ardent, that it melts him, as 
it were, into the common mass of mankind. Bowing 
himself, therefore, under the enormous load of all the 
wilful trespasses which his fellow-mortals, and parti¬ 
cularly his relatives and his brethren, daily commit 
against God, he says, with a fervour that imperfect 
Christians seldom feel, ‘ Forgive us our trespasses,’ &c. 
‘We are heartily sorry for our misdoings, (my own, 
and those of my fellow-sinners,) the remembrance of 
them is grievous unto us, the burden of them is intole¬ 
rable.’ Nor do we doubt but when the spirit of mourn¬ 
ing lead? a numerous assembly of supplicants into the 


154 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


vale of humiliation, the person who puts the shoulder 
of faith most readily to the common burden of sin, and 
heaves the most powerfully, in order to roll the enor¬ 
mous load into the Redeemer’s grave, is the most per¬ 
fect penitent, the most exact observer of the apostolic 
precept, ‘ Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil 
the law of Christ;’ and, of consequence, we do not 
scruple to say, that such a person is the most perfect 
Christian in the whole assembly. 

“ If Mr. Hill considers these answers, we doubt not 
but he will confess that his opposition to Christian per¬ 
fection chiefly springs from his inattention to our defi¬ 
nition of it, which I once more sum up in these com¬ 
prehensive lines of Mr. Wesley:— 

* O let me gain perfection’s height! 

0 let me into nothing fall! 

(As less than nothing in thy sight) 

And feel that Christ is all in all! ’ 

“VIII. Our opponents produce another plausible 
objection, which runs thus :— £ It is plain from your 
account of Christian perfection, that adult believers 
are free from sin, their hearts being purified by perfect 
faith, and filled with perfect love. Now, sin is that 
which humbles us, and drives us to Christ; and there¬ 
fore, if we were free from indwelling sin, we should 
lose a most powerful incentive to humility, which is 
the greatest ornament of a true Christian.’ 

“We answer: Sin never humbled any soul. Who 
has more sin than Satan ? And who is prouder ? Did 
sin make our first parents humble ? If it did not, why 
do our brethren suppose that its nature is altered for 
the better? Who was humbler than Christ? But was 
he indebted to sin for his humility ? Do we not see 
daily that the more sinful men are, the prouder they 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


155 


are also ? Did Mr. Hill never observe, that the holier 
a believer is, the humbler he’shows himself? And what 
is holiness, but the reverse of sin ? If sin is necessary 
to make us humble, and to keep us near Christ, does 
it not follow that glorified saints, whom all acknowledge 
to be sinless, are all proud despisers of Christ ? If hu¬ 
mility is obedience, and if sin is disobedience, is it not 
as absurd to say, that sin will make us humble,—that 
is, obedient,—as it is to affirm, that rebellion will make 
us loyal, and adultery chaste ? See we not sin enough, 
when we look ten or twenty years back, to humble us 
to the dust for ever, if sin can do it? Need we plead 
for any more of it in our hearts or lives ? If the sins of 
our youth do not humble us, are the sins of our old age 
likely to do it ? If we contend for the life of the man 
of sin, that he may subdue our pride, do we not take a 
large stride after those who say, ‘ Let us sin, that grace 
may abound ; let us continue full of indwelling sin, that 
humility may increase ?’ What is, after all, the evan¬ 
gelic method of getting humility ? Is it not to look at 
Christ in the manger, in Gethsemane, or on the cross ? 
to consider him when he washes his disciples’ feet ? 
and obediently to listen to him when he says, ‘ Learn 
of me to be meek and lowly in heart ?’ Where does 
the gospel plead the cause of the Barabbas and the 
thieves within ? Where does it say, that they may in¬ 
deed be nailed to the cross, and have their legs broken, 
but that their life must be left whole within them, lest 
we should be proud of their death ? Lastly : what is 
indwelling sin but indwelling pride ? At least, is not 
inbred pride one of the chief ingredients of indwelling 
sin ? And how can pride be productive of humility ? 
Can a serpent beget a dove ? And will not men gather 
grapes from thorns, sooner than humility of heart from 
haughtiness of spirit ? 


156 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“IX. The strange mistake which I detect would not 
be so prevalent among our prejudiced brethren, if they 
were not deceived by the plausibility of the following 
argument:—‘ When believers are humbled for a thing, 
they are humbled by it. But believers are humbled for 
sin; and therefore they are humbled by sin.’ 

“ The flaw of this argument is in the first proposi¬ 
tion. We readily grant, that penitents are humbled for 
sin ; or, in other terms, that they humbly repent of sin: 
but we deny that they are humbled by sin. To show 
the absurdity of the whole argument, I need only pro¬ 
duce a sophism exactly parallel: ‘ When people are 
blooded for a thing, they are blooded by it. But peo¬ 
ple are sometimes blooded for a cold; and therefore 
people are sometimes blooded by a cold.’ 

“X. * We do not assert that all perfection is imagi¬ 
nary : our meaning is, that all Christian perfection is 
in Christ; and that we are perfect in his person, and 
not in our own.’ 

“ Answer. —If you mean by 4 our being perfect only 
in Christ,’ that we can attain to Christian perfection no 
other way than by being perfectly grafted in him, the 
true vine ; and by deriving, like vigorous branches, the 
perfect sap of his perfect righteousness, to enable us 
to bring forth fruit unto perfection; we are entirely 
agreed. For we perpetually assert, that nothing but 
4 Christ in us the hope of glory,’ nothing but 4 Christ 
dwelling in our hearts by faith,’ or, which is all one, 
nothing but 4 the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Je¬ 
sus,’ can £ make us free from the law of sin,’ and 4 per¬ 
fect us in love.’ 

“ But as we never advanced that Christian perfec 
tion is attainable any other way than by a faith that 
roots and grounds us in Christ, we doubt some mys¬ 
tery of iniquity lies hid under these equivocal phrases: 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


157 


* All our perfection is in Christ’s person : we are per¬ 
fect in him, and not in ourselves.’ 

“ Should those who use them insinuate by such lan¬ 
guage, that we need not, cannot be perfect by an inhe¬ 
rent personal conformity to God’s holiness, because 
Christ is thus perfect for us ; or should they mean, that 
we are perfect in him, just as county freeholders, en¬ 
tirely strangers to state affairs, are perfect politicians 
in the knights of the shire who represent them in par¬ 
liament ; as the sick in a hospital are perfectly healthy 
in the physician that gives them his attendance ; as the 
blind man enjoyed perfect sight in Christ, when he saw 
walking men like moving trees ; as the filthy leper was 
perfectly clean in our Lord, before he had felt the power 
of Christ’s gracious words, ‘ I will, be thou clean;’ or 
as hungry Lazarus was perfectly fed in the person of 
the rich man at whose gate he lay starving: should 
this, I say, be your meaning, we are in conscience 
bound to oppose it, for the reasons contained in the fol¬ 
lowing queries :— 

“1. If believers are perfect because Christ is per¬ 
fect for them, why does the apostle exhort them to ‘ go 
on to perfection V 

“ 2. If all our perfection is inherent in Christ, is it 
not strange that St. Paul should exhort us ‘ to perfect 
holiness in the fear of God,’ by ‘ cleansing ourselves 
from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit?’ Did not 
Christ perfect his owd holiness ? and will his personal 
sanctity be imperfect till we have cleansed ourselves 
from all defilement ? 

“ 3. If Christ is perfect for us, why does St. James 
say, ‘ Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may 
be perfect V Is Christ’s perfection suspended upon the 
perfect work of our patience ? 

“ 4. Upon the scheme which I oppose, what does St. 


158 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Peter mean when he says, ‘ After ye have suffered a 
while, the Lord make you perfect ?’ What has our suf¬ 
fering a while to do with Christ’s perfection ? Was not 
Christ ‘ made perfect through’ his own ‘ sufferings ?’ 

“ 5. If believers were perfect in Christ’s person, they 
would all be equally perfect. But is this the case ? 
Does not St. John talk of some who are perfected, and 
of others who are ‘ not yet made perfect in love ?’ 
Besides, the apostle exhorts us to be perfect, not in 
antinomian notions, but ‘ in all the will of God,’ and 
‘ in every good work;’ and common sense dictates, that 
there is some difference between our good works and 
the person of Christ. 

“ 6. Does not our Lord himself show, that his per¬ 
sonal righteousness will by no means be accepted in 
stead of our personal perfection, where he says, ‘Every 
branch in me that beareth not fruit’ (or whose fruit 
never grows to any perfection, see Luke viii, 14) ‘ my 
Father taketh away,’ far from imputing to it my perfect 
fruitfulness ? 

“ 7. In the nature of things, can Christ’s perfection 
supply the want of that perfection which he calls us to ? 
Is there not a more essential difference between Christ’s 
perfection and that of a believer, than there is between 
the perfection of a rose and that of the grass of the 
field ? between the perfection of a soaring eagle and 
that of a creeping insect ? If our Lord is the head of 
the church, and we the members, is it not absurd to 
suppose that his perfection becomes us in every respect? 
Were I allowed to carry on a Scriptural metaphor, I 
would ask, Is not the perfection of the head very dif¬ 
ferent from that of the hand ? And do we not take ad¬ 
vantage of the credulity of the simple when we make 
them believe that an impenitent adulterer and murderer 
is perfect in Christ? or, if you please, that a crooked 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


159 


leg and cloven foot are perfectly handsome, if they do 
but somehow belong to a beautiful face ? 

“ 8. Let us illustrate this a little more. Does not 
the Redeemer’s personal perfection consist in his being 
God and man in one person; in his being * eternally 
begotten’ by the Father as the ‘ Son of God;’ and ‘un¬ 
begotten’ in time by a father, as the ‘ Son of man;’ in 
his having ‘given his life a ransom for all;’ in his hav¬ 
ing ‘ taken it up again ;’ and his ‘ standing in the midst 
of the throne, able to save to the uttermost all that 
come unto God through him ?’ Consider this, candid 
believer, and say if any man or angel can decently hope 
that such an incommunicable perfection can ever fall 
to his share. 

“ 9. As the Redeemer’s personal perfection cannot 
suit the redeemed, no more can the personal perfection 
of the redeemed be found in the Redeemer. A be¬ 
liever’s perfection consists in such a degree of faith as 
works by perfect love. And does not this high degree 
of faith chiefly imply, (1.) Uninterrupted self-diffidence, 
self-denial, self-despair ? (2.) A heartfelt, ceaseless re¬ 
course to the blood, merits, and righteousness of Christ? 
And, (3.) A grateful love to him, ‘ because he first loved 
us,’ and fervent charity toward all mankind for his 
sake ? Three things these, which, in the very nature 
of things, either cannot be in the Saviour at all, or can¬ 
not possibly be in him in the same manner in which 
they must be in believers. 

“10. Is not the doctrine of our being perfect in 
Christ’s person big with mischief? Does it not open a 
refuge of lies to the loosest ranters in the land ? Are 
there none who say, ‘We are perfect in Christ’s per¬ 
son : in him we have perfect chastity and honesty, per¬ 
fect temperance and meekness; and we should be 
guilty of pharisaic insolence if we patched his perfec- 


160 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


tion with the filthy rags of our personal holiness V 
And has not this doctrine a direct tendency to set 
godliness aside, and to countenance gross antinomi- 
anism ? 

“ Lastly: when our Lord preached the doctrine of 
perfection, did he not do it in such a manner as to de¬ 
monstrate that our perfection must be personal ? D.‘d 
he ever say, ‘ If thou wilt be perfect, only believe that 
I am perfect for thee V On the contrary, did he not 
declare, ‘ If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast,’ 
(part with all that stands in thy way,) ‘ and follow me’ 
in the way of perfection ? And again: ‘ Do good to 
them that hate you, that ye may be the children of your 
Father who is in heaven; for he sendeth rain on the 
just and on the unjust,’ &c. ‘ Be ye therefore perfect, 

even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect.’ Who 
can read these words and not see that the perfection 
which Christ preaches is a perfection of holy disposi¬ 
tions, productive of holy actions in all his followers ? 
and that, of consequence, it is a personal perfection, as 
much inherent in us, and yet as much derived from 
him, and dependant upon him, as the perfection of our 
bodily health ? the chief difference consisting in this, 
that the perfection of our health comes to us from God 
in Christ, as the God of nature, whereas our Christian 
perfection comes to us from God in Christ, as the God 
of grace.”* 

I will close my notice of the controversy during this 
period with a specimen of a conflict between the 
furious Toplady and the logical Fletcher. In his “ Ca¬ 
veat against Unsound Doctrine,” Mr. Toplady thus 
attempts to take the citadel by assault. 

“ What think you concerning the tenet of sinless 
perfection ? which supposes that the very inbeing 
* Last Check to Antinomianiam, sec. iii. 


♦ 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


161 


ol sin may, on earth, be totally exterminated from the 
hearts of the regenerate ; and that believers may here 
be pure as the angels that never fell, yea, (I tremble at 
the blasphemy,) holy as Christ himself. To hold this 
heresy is the very quintessence of delusion; but to 
imagine, ourselves really in the state it describes were 
the very apex of madness. Yet many such there are ; 
some such I myself have known. 

“Indwelling sin and unholy tempers do most certainly 
receive their death’s wound in regeneration ; but they 
do not quite expire until the renewed soul is taken up 
from earth to heaven. In the mean time, these hated 
remains of depravity will, too often, like prisoners in a 
dungeon, crawl toward the window, (though in chains,) 
and show themselves through the grate. Nay, I do 
not know whether the strivings of inherent corruption 
for mastery be not frequently more violent in a regene¬ 
rate person than even in one who is dead in trespasses: 
as wild beasts are sometimes the more rampant and 
furious for being wounded. A person of the amplest 
fortune cannot help the harbouring of snakes, toads, and 
other venomous reptiles on his lands; but they will 
breed, and nestle, and crawl about his estate, whether 
he will or no. All he can do is to pursue and kill them 
whenever they make their appearance ; yet, let him be 
ever so vigilant and diligent, there will always be a 
succession of those creatures to exercise his pa¬ 
tience AND ENGAGE HIS INDUSTRY. 

“Our Church enters an express caveat against the 
pestilent doctrine of perfection in her fifteenth article, 
entitled, ‘ Of Christ alone without sin.’ * 

“So it is declared, about the middle of the ninth 
article, that the ‘ infection of nature doth remain ; yea, 
in them that be regenerated.’ ” 

* See the article, p. 154. 

11 


162 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


To the first part of this argument Mr. Fletcher re 
plies as follows :— 

“ l. From the clause which I produce in capitals in 
this argument, one would think that patience and in¬ 
dustry cannot be properly exercised without indwelling 
sin. If so, does it not follow that our Lord’s patience 
and industry always wanted proper exercise, because 
he was always perfectly free from indwelling sin ? We 
are of a different sentiment with respect to our Lord’s 
Christian virtues ; and we apprehend that the patience 
and industry of the most perfect believer will always, 
without the opposition of indwelling sip, find full exer¬ 
cise in doing and suffering the whole will of God; in 
keeping the body under, in striving against the sin of 
others, in testifying by word and deed that the works 
of the world are evil, in resisting the numberless temp¬ 
tations of him who ‘ goes about as a roaring lion, seek¬ 
ing whom he may devour ;’ and in preparing to conflict 
with the king of terrors. 

“ 2. Why could not assiduous vigilance clear an es 
tate of snakes, as one of our kings cleared Great Bri¬ 
tain of wolves ? Did he not attempt and accomplish 
what appeared impossible to less resolute minds ? Mr. 
Toplady is too well acquainted with the classics not to 
know what the heathens themselves have said of indus¬ 
try and love :— 

‘ Omnia vincit amor. 

Labor improbws omnia vincit 

If ‘ love and incessant labour overcome the greatest dif¬ 
ficulties,’ what cannot a diligent believer do who is ani¬ 
mated by the love of God, and feels that he 4 can do all 
things through Christ, who strengtheneth him V 

3. But the capital flaw of Mr. Toplady’s argument 
consists in so considering the weakness of free will, as 
entirely to leave God, and the sanctifying power of his 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


163 


Spirit, out of the question. That gentleman forgets, 
that 4 for this purpose the Son of God’ (who is 4 Lord 
God omnipotent’) 4 was manifested, that he might de¬ 
stroy the works of the devil.’ Nor does he consider 
that a worm, assisted by omnipotence itself, is capable 
of the greatest achievements. Of this we have an 
illustrious instance in Moses, with respect to the re¬ 
moval of the lice, the frogs, and the locusts : 4 Moses 
entreated the Lord, and the Lord turned a mighty 
strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and 
cast them into the Red Sea; there remained not one 
locust in all the coasts of Egypt,’ Exod. x, 19. If Mr. 
Toplady had not forgot the mighty God with whom 
Moses and believers have to do, he would never have 
supposed that the comparison holds good between 
Christ cleansing the thoughts and heart of a praying 
believer by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit, and a 
man who can by no means destroy the snakes and toads 
that breed, nestle, and crawl about his estate. 

44 4. The reverend author of the Caveat sinks, in 
this argument, even below the doctrine of heathen mo¬ 
ralists. For, suppose the extirpation of a vicious habit 
were considered, would not a heathen be inexcusable 
if he overlooked the succour and inspiration of the 
Almighty ? And what shall we say of a gospel minis¬ 
ter who, writing upon the destruction of sin, entirely 
overlooks what, at other times, he calls the 4 sovereign, 
matchless, all-conquering, irresistible’ power of divine 
grace, which, if we believe him, is absolutely to do all 
in us and for us ? who insinuates, that the toad^-pride, 
and the viper—envy, must continue to nestle and crawl 
in our breast? for want of ability to destroy them ; and 
who concludes that the extirpation of sin is impossible, 
because we cannot bring it about by our own strength ? 
fust as if the power of God, which helps our mfirmi- 


164 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


ties, did not deserve a thought! Who does not see, 
that when a divine argues in this manner, he puts his 
bushel upon the light of Christ’s victorious grace, hides 
this sin-killing and heart-cleansing light, and then ab¬ 
surdly concludes that the darkness of sin must neces 
sarily remain in all believers ? Thus, if I mistake not, 
it appears that Mr. Toplady’s argument in favour of the 
death-purgatory is contrary to history, experience, and 
gentilism ; and how much more to Christianity, and to 
the honour of Him who to the uttermost saves his be¬ 
lieving people from their heart-toads and bosom-vipers, 
when they go to him for this great salvation !” 

The argument from the Thirty-nine Articles had been 
urged also by Mr. Hill, who had insisted upon the 
inconsistency of holding the doctrine of perfection, and 
an honest subscription to these Articles. I can only 
give an abstract of Mr. Fletcher’s answer. The whole 
is a most triumphant argument in proof that the Arti¬ 
cles, Homilies, and Liturgy of the Church of England 
are so far from condemning the doctrine of Christian 
perfection, that they abundantly sustain it. Thus Mr. 
Fletcher proceeds 

“In the preceding sections I have laid the axe at the 
root of some prejudices, and cut up a variety of objec¬ 
tions. The controversial field is cleared. The en¬ 
gagement may begin: nay, it is already begun; for Mr. 
Hill, in his Creed for Perfectionists, and Mr. Toplady, 
in his Caveat against Unsound Doctrines, have brought 
up, and fired at our doctrine, two pieces of ecclesiasti¬ 
cal artillery,—the ninth and fifteenth articles of our 
Church ; and they conclude that the contents of these 
doctrinal cannons absolutely demolish the perfection 
we contend for. The report of their wrong-pointed 
ordnance, and the noise they make about our subscrip¬ 
tions, are loud ; but that we need not be afraid of the 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


165 


shot will, I hope, appear from the following observa¬ 
tions :— 

“ The design of the fifteenth article of our Church is 
pointed out by the title, ‘ Of Christ alone without sin.’ 
From this title we conclude, that the scope and design 
of the article is not to secure to Christ the honour of 
being alone cleansed from sin ; because such an honour 
would be a reproach to his original and uninterrupted 
purity, which placed him far above the need of cleans¬ 
ing. Nor does the article drop the least hint about the 
impossibility of our being cleansed from sin before we 
go into the purgatory of the Calvinists; I mean, the 
chambers of death. What our Church intends, is to 
distinguish Christ from all mankind, and especially 
from the Virgin Mary, whom the Papists assert to have 
been always totally free from original and actual sin. 
Our Church does this by maintaining, 1. That Christ 
was born without the least taint of original sin, and 
never committed any actual transgression. 2. That 
all other men, the Virgin Mary and the most holy be¬ 
lievers not excepted, are the very reverse of Christ in 
both these respects; all being conceived in original sin, 
and offending in many things, even after baptism,* and 
with all the helps which we have under the Christian 
dispensation to keep us without sin from day to day. 
And, therefore, 3. That ‘ if we say we have no sin,’— 
if we pretend, like some Pelagians, that we have no 
original sin ; or if we intimate, like some Pharisees, 

* “ The Rev. Mr. Toplady, in his Historic Proof, page 235, informs 
us, that a Popish archbishop of St. Andrew’s condemned Patrick Ha¬ 
milton to death, for holding, among other doctrines, ‘that children in¬ 
continent after baptism are pinners,’ or, which is all one, that baptism 
does not absolutely take away original sin. This anecdote is impor¬ 
tant, and shows that our Church levels at a Popish error the words of 
her Articles, which Mr. Hill and Mr. Toplady suppose to be levelled 
at Christian perfection.” 


166 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


that ‘ we never did any harm in all onr life,’ that is, that 
we have no actual sin,—‘ we deceive ourselves, and the 
truth is not in us,’ there being absolutely no adult per¬ 
son without sin in those respects, except our Lord Je¬ 
sus Christ. 

“ That this is the genuine sense of the article appears, 
1. By the absurdity which follows from the contrary 
sentiment. For, if these words, £ Christ alone without 
sin,’ are to be taken in an absolute and unlimited sense; 
if the word ‘ alone’ entirely excludes all mankind at all 
times; if it is levelled at our being cleansed from sin, 
as well as at our having been always free from original 
and actual pollution ; if this is the case, I say, it is evi¬ 
dent that not only fathers in Christ, but also Enoch and 
Elijah, St. John and St. Paul, are to this day tainted 
with sin, and must, to all eternity, continue so, lest Mr. 
Hill’s opinion of ‘ Christ alone without sin’ should not 
be true. 

“ 2. Our sentiment is confirmed by the article itself, 
part of which runs thus : £ Christ, in the truth of our 
nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only 
excepted, from which he was clearly void, both in his 
flesh and in his spirit. He came to be a lamb without 
spot; and sin, as St. John says, was not in him. But 
all we the rest, although baptized and born again in 
Christ,’ (that is, although we have, from our infancy, 
all the helps that the Christian dispensation affords men 
to keep them without sin,) ‘yet offend in many things' 
after our baptism ; £ and if we say’ (as the above-men¬ 
tioned Pelagians and Pharisees) £ that we have no’ ori¬ 
ginal, or no actual £ sin,’ (that is, that we are like Christ 
in either of these respects, our conception, infancy, 
childhood, youth, and age being all taken into the ac 
count,) £ we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' 

“ Having thus opened the plain, rational, and Scrip- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 167 

tural sense in which we subscribe to our fifteenth arti¬ 
cle, it remains to make a remark upon the ninth. 

“ Some bigoted Pelagians deny original sin, or the 
Adamic infection of our nature; and some bigoted 
Papists suppose that this infection is entirely done 
away in baptism: in opposition to both these our 
Church prudently requires our subscription to her 
ninth article, which asserts, 1. That the fault and cor¬ 
ruption of our nature is a melancholy reality; and, 2. 
That this fault, corruption, or infection, doth remain in 
them who are regenerated; that is, in them who are 
baptized, or made children of God according to the 
Christian dispensation. For every person who has 
attentively read our Liturgy, knows that these expres¬ 
sions, ‘ baptized,’ 1 regenerated,’ and 1 made a member 
of Christ,’ and ‘ a child of God,’ are synonymous in 
the language of our Church. Now, because we have 
acknowledged by our subscription to the ninth article, 
that the infection of nature is not done away in bap¬ 
tism, but does remain in them which are regenerate, or 
baptized, Mr. Hill thinks himself authorized to impose 
upon us the yoke of indwelling sin for life ; supposing 
that we cannot be fair subscribers to that article unless 
we renounce the glorious liberty of God’s children, and 
embrace the antinomian gospel, which is summed up 
in these unguarded words of Luther, quoted by Bogatz- 
ky in his Golden Treasury :* ‘ The sins of a Chris¬ 
tian are for his good; and if he had no sin, he would- 
not be so well off, neither would prayer flow so well.’ 
Can any thing be either more unscriptural or absurd ? 
What unprejudiced person does not see, we may with 
the greatest consistency maintain, that baptism does 
not remove the Adamic infection of sin, and that, ne¬ 
vertheless, this infection maybe removed before death? 

* “See the edition printed in London, in 1773, p. 328.” 


168 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“ Nevertheless, we are willing to make Mr. Hill all 
the concessions we can, consistently with a good con¬ 
science. If by 4 the infection of nature,’ he understands 
the natural. ignorance which has infected our under¬ 
standing, the natural forgetfulness which has affected 
our memory, the inbred debility of all our mental pow¬ 
ers, and the poisonous seeds of mortality which infect 
all men from head to foot, and hinder the strongest be¬ 
lievers from serving God with all the fervour they would 
be capable of were they not fallen from paradisiacal 
perfection, under the curse of a body sentenced to die, 
and 4 dead because of sinif Mr. Hill, I say, under¬ 
stands this by 4 the infection of nature,’ we believe that 
such an infection, with all the natural, innocent appe¬ 
tites of the flesh, remains, not only in those whom the 
Scriptures call ‘ babes in Christ,’ but also in fathers ; 
there being no adult believer that may not say, as well 
as Christ, Adam, or St. Paul, 4 I thirst;’ 4 1 am hun¬ 
gry ;’ 4 1 want a help meet for me;’ 4 1 know but in 
part;’ 4 1 see darkly through a glass ;’ 4 1 groan being 
burdened ;’ 4 He that marrieth sinneth not;’ 4 It is bet¬ 
ter to marry than to burn,’ &c. 

44 But if Mr. Hill by 4 the infection of nature’ means 
the sinful lusts of the flesh, such as mental drunken¬ 
ness, gluttony, whoredom, &c.; or if he understands 
unloving, diabolical tempers, such as envy, pride, stub¬ 
bornness, malice, sinful anger, ungodly jealousy, unbe¬ 
lief, fretfulness, impatience, hypocrisy, revenge, or any 
moral opposition to the will of God ; if Mr. Hill, I say, 
understands this by 4 the infection of nature ;’ and if he 
supposes that these evils must radically and necessa¬ 
rily remain in the hearts of all believers, fathers in 
Christ not excepted, till death comes to cleanse the 
thoughts of their hearts by the inspiration of his ill¬ 
smelling breath; we must take the liberty of dissent- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


169 


ing from him : and we prodbce the following arguments 
to prove, that whatever Mr. Hill may insinuate to the 
contrary, the Church of England is not*against that 
doctrine of evangelical perfection which we vindicate. 

“ I. Our Church can never be so inconsistent as to 
level her Articles against what she ardently prays for 
in her Liturgy. But she ardently prays for Christian 
perfection, or for perfect love in this life : therefore she 
is not against Christian perfection. The second pro¬ 
position of this argument can alone be disputed ; and I 
support it by the well-known collect in the communion 
service : ‘ Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the 
inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly 
love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord/ Here we see, 1. The nature 
of Christian perfection,—it is perfect love. 2. The 
seat of this perfect love,—a heart cleansed from its own 
thoughts. 3. The blessed effect of it,—a worthy mag¬ 
nifying of God’s holy name. 4. Its author,—God, of 
whom the blessing is asked. 5. The immediate 
means of it,—the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And 
lastly, the gracious procurer of it,—our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

“II. This vein of godly desire after Christian perfec¬ 
tion runs through her daily service. In her confession 
she prays, ‘ Restore thou them that are penitent, ac¬ 
cording to thy promises,’ &c., ‘ that hereafter we may 
live a godly, righteous, and sober life, to the glory of 
thy holy name.’ Now godliness, righteousness, and 
sobriety, being the sum of our duty toward God, our 
neighbour, and ourselves, are also the sum of Chris¬ 
tian perfection. Nor does our Church absolve any, but 
such as desire ‘ that the rest of their life may be pure 
and holy, so that at the last they may come to God’s 
eternal joy ;’ plainly intimating, that we may get a pure 


170 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


heart, and lead a pure and holy life, without going into 
a death-purgatory ; and that those who do not attain to 
purity of heart and life, that is, to perfection, are in dan 
ger of missing God’s eternal joy. 

“III. Hence it is, that she is not ashamed to pray daily 
for sinless purity, in the Te Deum: ‘Vouchsafe, O 
Lord, to keep us this day without sin that is, sinless, 
for I suppose that the title of our fifteenth article, ‘ Of 
Christ alone without sin,’ means, Of Christ alone sin¬ 
less from his conception to his last gasp. This deep 
petition is perfectly agreeable to the collects for the 
ninth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth Sundays 
after Trinity : ‘ Grant to us the Spirit to think and do 
always such things as be rightful, that we may be 
enabled to live according to thy will,’ that is, to live 
without sin. ‘We pray thee, that thy grace may always 
prevent and follow us, and make us to be continually 
given to all good works,’ &c. ‘ Grant thy people grace 
to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, 
and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow 
thee.’ ‘ Mercifully grant, that thy Holy Spirit may in 
all things direct and rule our hearts.’ Again : ‘ May it 
please thee, that by the wholesome medicines of the 
doctrine delivered by him,’ (Luke, the evangelist and 
physician of the soul,) ‘ all the diseases of our souls 
may be healed,’ &c. St. Luke’s day. ‘ Mortify and 
kill in us all vices;’ (and among them envy, selfish¬ 
ness, and pride ;) ‘ and so strengthen us by thy grace, 
that, by the innocency of our lives, and constancy of 
our faith, even unto death, we may glorify thy holy 
name,’ &c. The Innocents’ day. ‘ Grant us the help 
of thy grace, that in keeping thy commandments we 
may please thee both in will and deed.’ First Sunday 
after Trinity. ‘Direct, sanctify, and govern both our 
hearts and bodies in the ways of thy laws, and in the 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


171 


works of thy commandments, that we may be pre¬ 
served,’ in those ways and works, ‘ in body and soul. 

‘ Prevent us in all our doings,’ &c., 4 and further us 
with thy continual help; that in all our works, begun, 
continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy 
name.’ Communion service. Once more: ‘ Grant 
that in all our sufferings here on earth,’ &c., c we may 
steadfastly look up to heaven, and by faith behold the 
glory that shall be revealed ; and being filled with the 
Holy Ghost, may learn to bless our persecutors by the 
example of thy first martyr,’ &c. St. Stephen’s day. 
It is worth our notice, that blessing our persecutors 
and murderers is the last beatitude, the highest instance 
of Christian perfection, and the most difficult of all the 
duties which, if we may believe our Lord, constitute 
us perfect, in our sphere, as our heavenly Father is 
perfect. See Matt, v, 11, 44, 45, 48. 

“ Should that gentleman object, that although our 
Church bids us pray for Christian perfection in the 
above-cited collects, and in our Lord’s prayer, yet she 
does not intimate that these deep prayers may be an¬ 
swered in this life ; I oppose to that argument, not only 
the word c on earth,’ which she so frequently mentions 
in the Lord’s prayer, but also her own words : 4 Ever¬ 
lasting God, who art more ready to hear than we to 
pray, and art wont to give more than we desire,’ &c., 
4 pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy,’ &c. 
Twelfth Sunday after Trinity. Mr. Hill must there¬ 
fore excuse us, if we side with our praying Church, and 
are not ashamed to say with St. Paul, 4 Glory be to him 
that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that 
we ask or think, according to the power that worketh 
in us,” Eph. iii, 20, 21. 

44 Our Church cannot reasonably oppose what she 
ardently wishes to all her communicants, and what she 


172 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


earnestly asks for and strongly recommends to all her 
members. But she thus wishes, asks, and recom¬ 
mends deliverance from all sins, and perfect charity, 
that is, Christian perfection : and therefore she cannot 
be against Christian perfection. The second proposi¬ 
tion is founded, 1. Upon these words of the absolution, 
which she gives to all her communicants :—‘ Almighty 
God,’ &c., ‘ pardon and deliver you from all your sins, 
confirm and strengthen you in all goodness.’ 2. Upon 
her collect for Quinquagesima Sunday: ‘ Send thy 
Holy Ghost, and pour into our hearts that most excel¬ 
lent gift of charity, the very bond of peace and of all 
virtues :’ St. Paul calls it ‘ the bond of perfection.’ 
And, 3. Upon the definition which she gives us of cha¬ 
rity in her Homilies :— 1 Charity,’ says she, ‘ is to love 
God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our power 
and strength. With all our heart; that is to say, that 
our heart, mind, and study be set to believe his word, 
and to love him above all things that we love best in 
heaven or in earth. With all our soul; that is to say, 
that our chief joy and delight be set upon him, and our 
whole life given to his service. With all our power ; 
that is to say, that with our hands and feet, with our 
eyes and ears, our mouths and tongues, and with all 
our parts and powers, both of body and soul, we should 
be given to the keeping of his commandments. This 
is the principal part of charity, but it is not the whole ; 
for charity is also, to love every man, good and evil, 
friend and foe, whatsoever cause be given to the con¬ 
trary.’ Homily on Charity. ‘Of charity, he’ (St. 
John) ‘ says, “ He that doth keep God’s word and com¬ 
mandment, in him is truly the perfect love of God,” &c. 
And St. John wrote not this as a subtle saying,’ &c., 
‘ but as a most certain and necessary truth.’ Homily 
of Faith, part ii. ‘ Thus it is declared unto you, what 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


173 


true charity or Christian love is,’ See ., 1 which love who¬ 
soever keepeth, not only toward God, whom he is 
bound to love above all things, but also toward his 
neighbour, as well friend as foe, it shall surely keep 
him from all offence of God, and just offence of man.’ 
Homily of Charity, part ii. Again : ‘ Every man per- 
suadeth himself to be in charity ; but let him examine 
his own heart, his life and conversation, and he shall 
truly discern whether he be in perfect charity or not. 
For he that followeth not his own will, but giveth him¬ 
self earnestly to God, to do all his will and command¬ 
ment, he may be sure that he loveth God above all 
things, or else surely he loveth him not, whatsoever he 
pretend.’ Homily on Charity. Once more ‘ Perfect 
patience careth not what, nor how much it suffereth, 
nor of whom it suffereth, whether of friend or foe, but 
studieth to suffer innocently. Yea, he in whom per¬ 
fect charity is, careth so little to revenge, that he rather 
studieth to do good for evil, according to the most per¬ 
fect example of Christ upon the cross. Such charity 
and love as Christ showed in his passion should we 
bear one to another, if we will be his true servants. 
If we love but them that love us, what great thing do 
we do? We must be perfect in our charity, even as 
our Father in heaven is perfect.’ Homily for Good 
Friday.” 

It should be well considered, that the language quoted 
here from the Liturgy and Homilies was written by 
the English reformers. The query naturally arises, 
whether these pious men could have used this lan¬ 
guage, and yet have denied the attainableness of a 
state of evangelical perfection. This I very much 
doubt. That they, in opposition to the Romish errors, 
sometimes expressed themselves incautiously in rela¬ 
tion to the existence of concupiscence in the regenerate , 


174 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


furnishes no conclusive evidence that, could our theory 
have been presented to them unincumbered with Pela- 
gian or Popish errors, they would have rejected it as 
essentially erroneous. 

These specimens are sufficient to show the true 
ground occupied by the two parties in this controversy, 
and the manner of attack and defense which charac 
terized its prosecution. And as this is all that I de- 
signed to accomplish, I will here close this branch of 
the history of the controversy. 


LECTURE IX. 

CONTROVERSIES-CONTINUED. 

« To the law and to the testimony.” Isa. viii, 20. 

In the present lecture I shall notice briefly the con¬ 
troversy upon the subject of Christian perfection now 
in progress among our Presbyterian and Congregational 
brethren in this country. 

President Mahan and Professor Finney, of the 
Oberlin Theological Institute, with several others, have 
published views upon the subject which are deemed 
by most of their brethren as novel, and injurious to the 
interests of religion. As the works of these gentle¬ 
men, and those of their opponents, are before the pub¬ 
lic, and can be easily obtained, I shall not occupy 
much space in quoting their language. 

Messrs. Mahan and Finney, in their systematic 
statements of the doctrine, tell us both what it is and 
what it is not. The following is the first part of Pre¬ 
sident Mahan’s statement:— 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


175 


“ My design in the present discourse is to answer 
this one question: What is perfection in holiness ? 
In answering this inquiry, I would remark, that per¬ 
fection in holiness implies a full and perfect discharge 
of our entire duty, of all existing obligations in respect 
to God and all other beings. It is perfect obedience 
to the moral law. It is ‘ loving the Lord our God with 
all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our 
strength, and our neighbour as ourselves.’ It implies 
the entire absence of all selfishness, and the perpetual 
presence and all-pervading influence of pure and per¬ 
fect love. ‘ Love is the fulfilling of the law.’ ”* 

Professor Finney’s is as follows:—“By entire 
sanctification, I understand the consecration of the 
whole being to God. In other words, it is that state 
of devotedness to God and his service required by the 
moral law. The law is perfect. It requires just, what 
is right, all that is right, and nothing more. Nothing 
more nor less can possibly be perfection or entire 
sanctification, than obedience to the law. Obedience 
to the law of God in an infant, a man, an angel, and in 
God himself, is perfection in each of them. And no¬ 
thing can possibly be perfection in any being short of 
this, nor can there possibly be any thing above it.”f 
It will be perceived that these statements differ from 
those of our standards upon the point of legal obe¬ 
dience. They assert “perfect obedience to the moral 
law,” whereas Wesleyans deny the practicability of 
any such obedience. 

Their theory is understood by their opponents to 
differ in this respect from the Wesleyan theory. Hence 
they set them down as a distinct class of perfectionists, 
holding to a legal perfection , which some think a 

* Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, pp. 7, 8. 

1 Lecture I. Oberlin Evangelist, vol. ii, p. 1. 


176 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


much better , and others a much worse , system than 
that of the Methodists.* 

My object at present is not so much to controvert the 
views^of these brethren, as to call particular attention to 
a feature in their statements which has no place in our 
standards. This however seems to be somewhat modi¬ 
fied by their negative propositions. As a specimen of 
this, I give the following from Mr. Mahan’s negative 
statement:— 

“ Hence I remark, that perfection in holiness does 
not imply, that we now love God with all the strength 
and intensity with which redeemed spirits in heaven 
love him. The depth and intensity of our love depend, 
under all circumstances, upon the vigour and reach of 
our powers, and the extent and distinctness of our 
vision of divine truth. ‘ Here we see through a glass 
darkly; there face to face.’ Here our powers are 
comparatively weak; there they will be endowed with 
an immortal and tireless vigour. In each and every 
sphere, perfection in holiness implies a strength and 
intensity of love corresponding with the reach of our 
powers and the extent and distinctness of our vision 
of truth in that particular sphere. The child is perfect 
in holiness who perpetually exercises a filial and affec¬ 
tionate obedience to all the divine requisitions, and 
loves God with all the powers which it possesses as a 
child. The man is perfect in holiness who exercises 
the same supreme and affectionate obedience to all 
that God requires, and loves him to the full extent of 
his knowledge and strength as a man. The saint on 
earth is perfect, when he loves with all the strength 

* See Dr. Pond’s article, Biblical Repository, January, 1839, p. 45; 
and “ The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification stated, and defended 
against the Errors of Perfectionism, by W. D. Snodgrass, D. D.,” 
pp. 98, 99. “ Who shall, decide when doctors disagree ?” 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


177 


and intensity rendered practicable by the extent of his 
knowledge and reach of his powers in his present 
sphere. The saint in heaven will be favoured with a 
seraph’s vision, and a seraph’s power. To be perfect 
there, he must love and adore with a seraph’s vigour, 
and burn with a seraph’s fire.”* 

Upon the two parts of the statement, Dr. Snodgrass 
remarks as follows :—“ It [Christian perfection] is de¬ 
fined by a recent writer, as involving ‘ perfect obedience 
to the moral law.’ It implies, he says, ‘ a full and per¬ 
fect discharge of our entire duty in respect to Gdd and 
all other beings.’ And, if this definition were allowed 
to stand unqualified and unimpaired, we should desire 
no other. But it falls out, in immediate connection 
with this language, that the demands of the law of God 
upon us depend upon our * circumstances '—that ‘ our 
powers are comparatively weak’—and that what is re¬ 
quired of us is holiness ‘ corresponding with the reach 
of our powers.’ We are thus driven at once from what 
seemed to be safe and tenable ground, and thrown 
upon the radical error, that the extent of our powers, 
fallen as we are, is the ground and measure of our 
obligation.”! 

Professor Finney, among a multitude of negative pro¬ 
positions, has the following:—“It[Christian perfection] 
does not imply the same degree of knowledge that we 
might have possessed, had we always improved our 
time in its acquisition. The law cannot require us to 
love God or man as well as we might have been able 
to love them, had we always improved all our time in 
obtaining all the knowledge w T e could, in regard to their 
nature, character, and interests. If this were implied 
in the requisition of the law, there is not a saint on 

* Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, p. 9. 

t Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, &c., pp. 22,23 
12 


178 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


earth or in heaven that is or ever can be perfect. 
What is lost in this respect is lost, and past neglect 
can never be so atoned for as that we shall ever be 
able to make up in our acquisitions of knowledge what 
we have lost. It will, no doubt, be true to all eternity, 
that we shall have less knowledge than we might have 
possessed, had we filled up all our time in its acquisi¬ 
tion. We do not, cannot, nor shall we ever be able to 
love God as well as we might have loved him, had we 
always applied our minds to the acquisition of know¬ 
ledge respecting him. And if entire sanctification is 
to be understood as implying that we love God as much 
as we should, had w r e all the knowledge we might 
have had, then I repeat it, there is not a saint on 
earth or in heaven, nor ever will be, that is entirely 
sanctified. 

“ It does not imply the same amount of service that 1 
we might have rendered, had we never sinned. The 
law of God does not imply or suppose that our powers 
are in a perfect state; that our strength of body or 
mind is what it would have been, had we never sinned. 
But it simply requires us to use what strength we have. 
The very wording of the law is proof conclusive that it 
extends its demands only to the full amount of what 
strength we have. And this is true of every moral 
being, however great or small. 

“ It does not require the same degree of love that 
we might have rendered, but for our ignorance. We 
certainly know much less of God, and therefore are 
much less capable of loving him; that is, we are 
capable of loving him with a less amount, and to a less 
degree, than if we knew more of him, which we might • 
have done but for our sins. And as I have before said, 
this will be true to all eternity; for we can never make 
amends by any future obedience or diligence for this 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


179 


any more than for other sins. And to all eternity, it 
will remain true, that we know less of God, and love 
him less than we might and should have done, had we 
always done our duty. If entire sanctification, there¬ 
fore, implies the same degree of love or service that 
might have been rendered, had we always developed 
our powers by a perfect use of them, then there is not 
a saint on earth or in heaven that is or ever will be in 
that state. The most perfect development and im¬ 
provement of our powers must depend upon the most 
perfect use of them. And every departure from their 
perfect use is a diminishing of their highest develop¬ 
ment, and a curtailing of their capabilities to serve God 
in the highest and best manner. All sin, thdh, does 
just so much toward crippling and curtailing the powers 
of body and mind, and rendering them, by just so much, 
incapable of performing the service they might other¬ 
wise have rendered.”* 

Now upon these and similar positions the Oberlin di¬ 
vines are charged by their opponents with “lettingdown 
the law of God.”f And it does appear to me that they 
are logically liable, to this charge. For in speaking of 
the standard of holiness, they always refer to “ the law 
and Christian perfection they make out “ that state of 
devotedness to God and his service required by the 
moral law,” and this same “ moral law” does not re¬ 
quire, according to Prof. Finney, “the same degree 
of knowledge,” nor “ the same amount of service,” nor 
“ the same degree of love” that “ we might have ren¬ 
dered, had we never sinned.” I shall resume the sub¬ 
ject of the law upon a future occasion. My only object 
at present is, to present the peculiarities of the Oberlin 

* Lecture I. Oberlin Evangelist, vol. ii, pp. 3, 4. 

t See a communication from the synod of Genesee, dated Lockport, 
Oct., 1840. New-York Observer. 


180 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


system, not to controvert them, but to see wherein they 
differ from the Wesleyan theory. 

The Oberlin divines have met with two classes of 
opponents. One, as Dr. Snodgrass and the Princeton 
Review,denies \heattainableness of this state of perfec¬ 
tion altogether in the present life. But Dr. Woods, Dr. 
Pond, the Biblical Repository, and the New-York Evan¬ 
gelist, admit the attainableness , but deny the fact of this 
perfection ; or they admit that the perfection asserted 
by the Oberlin divines is attainable, but deny that any 
ever have attained it, or that any ever will hereafter 
attain it in this life. The following is Dr. Woods’ po¬ 
sition upon the subject:— 

“ Mr. Mahan represents it as a question on which 
his opinion differs from the one commonly entertained: 
‘whether we,may now, during the progress of the pre¬ 
sent life, attain to entire perfection in holiness.’ (Dis¬ 
courses^. 15.) And in his second discourse he makes 
it his particular inquiry, whether a state, of complete 
holiness is attainable in the present life. He informs 
us that he does not use the words attainable and prac¬ 
ticable with reference merely or chiefly to our natural 
powers as intelligent, accountable agents, but with re¬ 
ference to the provisions of divine grace. And he lays 
it down as a truth, which distinguishes his system from 
the one generally held, that ‘ complete holiness is, in 
the highest and most common acceptation of the term, 
attainable .’ And in the last number of the Repository, 
(p. 409,) he states it as a point peculiar to him and his 
party, ‘ that we may render to God the perfect obe¬ 
dience which he requires.’ But we hold to this as 
much as he does, and, as I suppose, on the same con¬ 
ditions ; that is, we may render perfect obedience, if 
we apply ourselves to the work as we ought , and fully 
avail ourselves of the gracious provisions of the gos- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


181 


pel. He surely would not say that we may render per¬ 
fect obedience in any other way. 

“ I must therefore protest here, as I did in the former 
case, against Mr. Mahan’s claiming that, as belonging 
peculiarly and exclusively to him, and to those who 
agree with him, which belongs equally to others. We 
hold, as decidedly as he does, that, in the common ac¬ 
ceptation of the term, complete holiness is attainable 
in the present life. When we assert that a thing is 
attainable , or may be attained, our meaning is, that a 
proper use of means will secure it; that we shall 
obtain it, if we do what we ought; and that, if we fail 
of obtaining it, truth will require us to say we might 
have obtained it, and that our failure was owing alto¬ 
gether to our own fault. The attainableness of any 
thing surely does not mean the same thing as its being 
actually obtained. For it is very common to speak of 
many things—for example, the improvement of the 
mind, and a state of competence—as things which are 
attainable , or which may be obtained, but which never 
are obtained. The same as to the blessings of the 
gospel. Mr. Mahan would doubtless say, as others do, 
that salvation is attainable by all who hear the gospel; 
that under the dispensation of grace, any and all sin¬ 
ners may be saved; meaning, that means and opportu¬ 
nities are provided; that the way is prepared; that 
salvation is freely.offered to them on the most reasona¬ 
ble terms ; that a proper conduct on their part will 
secure the blessing, and that if they do not obtain it, 
they themselves, and they only, will be the faulty cause 
of the failure. When we say a thing is not attainable , 
we mean that, whatever we may do, we cannot obtain 
it, and that our failing to obtain it will not be owing to 
any misconduct or neglect on our part. It is often, 
and truly represented, that impenitent sinners, at the 


182 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


judgment day, will have the painful reflection that the 
blessedness of heaven was offered to them, and was 
put within their reach—that they might have been 
saved, but refused the infinite good.”* 

This is considered by Dr. Snodgrass and the Prince¬ 
ton Review, on the one hand, and by the Oberlin di¬ 
vines on the other, “ as virtually giving up the matter 
in dispute.” And I see no reason for a doubt upon the 
subject. The simple question between the Reformed 
and the Remonstrants, and between Messrs. Wesley 
and Fletcher, and Messrs. Hill, Toplady, Martin, and 
others, was the attainableness of a state of evangelical 
perfection in the present life. For maintaining the 
affirmative of this question, Arminians have been con¬ 
sidered heterodox, and branded with the offensive epi¬ 
thet of perfectionists. But it seems the Andover 
professor can take the position that “ perfect conformity 
to the moral law” is attainable in this life, and be no 
perfectionist at all. The position of the good doctor 
and his coadjutors does really entitle them to a large 
share of the obloquy which orthodox Calvinists have 
ever heaped upon Arminians for the unpardonable sin 
of perfectionism; and in such company perhaps we 
should be content to suffer reproach, claiming however 
exemption from the charge of holding to the attainable¬ 
ness of legal perfection, a crime that Dr. Woods openly 
and explicitly confesses. 

The doctor goes further, and maintains, “ that de¬ 
vout Christians and orthodox divines have, in all ages, 
maintained this precious doctrine.”! Now here we 
must proceed with caution. Let it be noticed that the 
learned professor is speaking of legal perfection , foi 
such he understands to be the perfection maintained by 

* An Examination of the Doctrine of Perfection, pp. 26-28. 

t Ibid., p. 15. 


i 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


183 


President Mahan. With this understanding we demur 
at the declaration. The historical investigation we have 
passed through will show, as clear as light, that none 
but Pelagians, Romanists, Anabaptists, Ranters, &c., 
ever “ maintained this doctrine.” A perfection which 
consists in perfect conformity to the original law has 
ever been denied by “ devout Christians and orthodox 
divines.” I have given abundant evidence that this 
doctrine was denied and controverted by all the re¬ 
formers, by the Reformed Churches, by the Remon¬ 
strants, and by Mr. Wesley and his coadjutors. 

But if the doctor, by “ orthodox divines,” means 
Calvinistic divines, his assertion is most palpably erro¬ 
neous : for these divines have steadily, from the days 
of the great Genevan reformer down to the present 
time, explicitly denied the attainableness in this life of 
the perfection required both by the lato and by thegm- 
j oel, and have, on the other hand, asserted the neces¬ 
sary continuance of sin in believers until death. 

Calvin says: “ There never has been a saint who, 
surrounded with a body of death, could attain to such 
a degree of love, as to love God with all his heart, 
with all his soul, and with all his mind.”* 

Witsius says : “We are not to imagine that any one 
in this life can attain to that perfection which the law 
of God requires, that, living without all sin, he should 
wholly employ himself in the service of God.”f 
Mr. Romaine, in speaking of “the experience of 
every true believer,” says: “ He desires to keep his 
thoughts from wandering; he would have his whole 
heart engaged in the duty, but he cannot?\ 

Mr. Toplady says : ‘ Such being the unrelaxing per- 

* Institutes, book ii, chap, vii, sec. v. 
t Economy of the Covenants, vol. ii, pp. 55, 56. 
t Treatise on Faith, p. 376. 


1«4 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 

fection which the law inflexibly requires, it necessarily 
follows that the supposition of possible perfection on 
earth is the most fanatic dream, and the most gigantic 
delusion which can whirl the brain of a human being.”* 

Dr. John Dick says : “ The possibility of perfection 
in the present state could be conceived only by men 
who were ignorant of the Scripture and of themselves. 
They must first have lowered the standard of holiness. 
They must have narrowed and abated the demands of 
the divine law to meet their fancied attainments.”! 

Rev. Charles Buck says : “ There is a perfection of 
degrees , by which a person performs all the commands 
of God, with the full exertion of all his powers, with¬ 
out the least defect. This is what the law of God re¬ 
quires, but what the saints cannot attain to in this 
life.”! 

In addition to these authorities, I give the Westmin¬ 
ster divines, and the General Assembly of the Presby¬ 
terian Church. The language adopted by the latter 
from the former is as follows :—“ Q. 149. Is any man 
able perfectly to keep the commandments of God? 
A. No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace 
received in this life, perfectly to keep the command¬ 
ments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, 
word, and deed.”§ 

Need ] multiply passages from those whom Dr. 
Woods will not hesitate to acknowledge as “orthodox 
divines,” to prove that he has taken an untenable posi¬ 
tion, when he claims for the admission of the attain¬ 
ableness of this perfection the common consent of 
evangelical Christians? Until the learned professor 

* Works of Aug. Toplady, p. 141. 
t Theology, vol. ii, p. 242. 
t Theological Dictionary; article, Perfection. 

§ Larger Catechism. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


185 


shall review his ground, and correct himself, he stands 
in an unenviable position. His facts are wholly un¬ 
supported, and his system, as a whole, liable to more 
objections, and has less support from the Scriptures, 
the formularies of faith adopted by Protestant Churches, 
and the published opinions of “orthodox divines” of 
all ages, than almost any other system of perfection 
which has ever been given to the world. 

Did Dr. Woods and those who agree with him enter¬ 
tain the right notions of Christian perfection , we might 
well rejoice in their admission of its attainableness. 
But holding, as they do, to a legal perfection , the very 
theory which has always been opposed by orthodox 
Protestants, upon mature consideration of the matter I 
have come to the conclusion, for myself, that it is no 
special cause of joy to the believers in the doctrine of 
evangelical perfection .* The temper, however, in 
which Dr. Woods writes is most kind—characterized 
by Christian meekness and charity. 

But for the logic of this writer I cannot speak in. so 
favourable terms. How the learned professor could 
persuade himself that he was doing justice to his oppo¬ 
nent, when he applied his arguments to a proposition 
which he had not attempted to prove, is to me wholly 
unaccountable. Mr. Mahan had introduced numerous 
Scripture proofs, that a state of Christian perfection 
is attainable in this life. Dr. Woods seems to think 
that he has fully and logically refuted Mr. Mahan, when 
he has shown, by a laboured argument, that these argu¬ 
ments do not “ certainly prove that believers will ever 
be completely sanctified.” All this, constituting nearly 

* Not having then so fully investigated the character of the per. 
fection which Dr. W. had in view, I was led on a former occasion to 
regard his concession in too favourable a light. See Methodist 
Quarterly Review, vol. i, p. 317. 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


18(3 

one half of his rep^y, is as clear an instance of the 
sophism Ignoratio Elenchi, a misapprehension of the 
question , as can easily be found in the productions 
of any sophist. In this I must not be understood as 
interfering in the controversy between these gentle¬ 
men. I am not the apologist or defender of either one 
or the other, but a simple reporter of facts as they pre¬ 
sent themselves to my own mind. 

How far the views of the Oberlin divines upon the 
metaphysical distinction so generally received by Cal- 
vinistic theologians between natural and moral ability 
go to modify their views of the subject of Christian 
perfection, I shall not attempt to determine.* So far 

* Since writing the above, several late numbers of the Oberlin 
Evangelist have fallen in my way, which I had not before seen. In 
these Professor Finney presents views which are not only novel 
and eccentric, but several of them exceedingly objectionable. In a 
sermon by the professor, a “ moral ability,” “ natural ability,” and 
“ gracious ability,” are pronounced “ distinctions” absolutely “ nonsen. 
sical.” As to the distinction of President Edwards, referred to in the 
text, and quite generally adopted by Calvinistic divines, this gentle¬ 
man sustains the following propositions:—“ Their natural ability is 
no ability at all—their natural inability , so far as morality or virtue 
is concerned, is no inability at all—their moral ability is no ability at 
all—their moral inability is an absolute natural inability.^ This, I 
suppose, will be quite sufficient evidence that he has broken loose 
from the trammels of new divinity in more points than one. But 
while he repudiates this cherished distinction of moral and natural 
ability, he is equally strong in his objections against the Arminian 
theory of gracious ability. This kind of ability he undertakes to 
prove “ has no grace whatever in it.” The reasoning by which he 
does this is perfectly sophistical. The gist of the argument is con¬ 
tained in the following:—“ It is a first truth of reason, that moral 
obligation implies the possession of every kind of ability which is 
indispensable to render the required act possible. For example, if 
God requires me to fly, he must furnish me wings.” In this way 
he makes it a matter of mere “ justice ” on God’s part to give the 

» Vol. iv, No. 18. August 31, 1842, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


187 


as I have been able to find, they are sufficiently ex¬ 
plicit upon the necessity of direct divine influence in 
the actual accomplishment of the work of sanctification. 
I give the following from President Mahan as speci¬ 
mens :— 

“ We learn how to understand and apply such declara¬ 
tions of Scripture as the following:—‘ Wash you, 
make you clean‘ Make to yourselves a new heart 
and. a new spirit;’ ‘Let us cleanse ourselves from 

power to do what he requires. The most charitable construction 
which can be put upon this argument is, that the preacher had so 
completely lost himself in a labyrinth of metaphysical speculations, as 
unintentionally to have reversed the regular order of antecedent and 
sequence. 

We suppose, in the economy of grace, man is first restored to a 
new probation, and this new probation implies the means necessary 
to meet the conditions of the new covenant. The conditions required 
are based upon the provisions of this covenant. These provisions 
imply all the power, and gracious aid, necessary to enable man to 
comply fully with its terms. Now, is there no grace in placing the 
human family in a condition in which salvation is possible ? Is there 
no grace in putting eternal life within their reach ? 

But the professor urges that “ justice does demand that a moral 
being should possess the requisite ability, whatsoever that is, to do 
and be what he is commanded to do and be.” This would be a 
logical argument upon the supposition that God first commanded man 
to repent and believe the gospel, before any such thing as a gospel 
existed. In such a case we should naturally enough conclude that a 
gospel must then be provided to be believed, or the sinner could not 
be justly condemned for disobedience to the command. But this 
supposition has no foundation in/act. It is a mere phantom. It is 
reversing the natural order of things. Indeed, the argument by which 
the professor undertakes to prove the theory of gracious ability “ non- 
sensical” is a perfect fallacy, and is as fairly entitled to be character¬ 
ized by his own favourite epithets, “ absurd and nonsensical,” as can 
well be imagined. The new covenant is a covenant of grace ;—its 
provisions are gracious provisions;—the ability to avail ourselves of 
these provisions is gracious ability;—the whole superstructure, from 
the foundation to the head-stone, is grace —grace! 


188 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,’ &c. The com- 
*mon impression seems to be, that men are required 
to do all this, in the exercise of their own unaided 
powers ; and because the sinner fails to comply, grace 
comes in, and supplies the condition in the case of 
Christians. Now, I suppose that all such commands 
are based upon the provisions of divine grace. The 
sinner is not required to ‘'make himself clean,’ or to 
‘ make to himself a new heart,’ in the exercise of his 
unaided powers, but by application to the blood of 
Christ, ‘ which cleanseth from all sin.’ The grace 
which purifieth the heart is provided; the fountain, 
whose waters cleanse from sin, is set open. To this 
fountain the creature is brought, and because he may 
descend into it, and there ‘ wash his garments and make 
them white,’ he is met with the command, ‘Wash you, 
make you clean,’ ‘ make to yourself a new heart and a 
new spirit,’ and ‘ cleanse yourself from all filthiness of 
the flesh and spirit.’ The sinner is able to make to 
himself a ‘ new heart and a new spirit,’ because he can 
instantly avail himself of proffered grace. He does 
literally* ‘ make to himself a new heart and a new spi¬ 
rit,’ when he yields himself up to the influence of that 
grace. The power to cleanse from sin lies in the blood 
and grace of Christ; and hence, when the sinner 
‘ purifies himself by obeying the truth through the Spi¬ 
rit,’ the glory of his salvation belongs, not to him, but 
to Christ.”! 

“ I would here say, that I have for ever given up all 
idea of resisting temptation, subduing any lust, appe¬ 
tite, or propensity, or of acceptably performing any 
service for Christ, by the mere force of my own reso- 

* I would rather say, he does in some sense make to himself a new 
heart. The expression in the text implies too much. 

t Scripture Doctrine, pp. 91, 92. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


189 


lutions. If my propensities, which lead to sin, are 
crucified, I know that it must be done by an indwelling 
Christ. If I overcome the world, this is to be the 
victory, ‘even our faith.’ If the great enemy is to 
be overcome, it is to be done ‘by the blood of the 
Lamb.’ ”* 

It is often asked, with no little solicitude, Do the 
Oberlin divines receive the true Wesleyan doctrine of 
evangelical perfection? Is there any real difference 
between them and the Methodist standards upon the 
subject ? I feel compelled to meet this question ; and 
yet I fear I may not be fully understood, and that what 
I shall say may offend against some of the generation 
of God’s dear children. I must, notwithstanding, make 
an effort to do justice to the question, though I can 
devote to it but a small space. 

1. Be it observed, that a portion of the phrase¬ 
ology employed by these writers comes very near the 

* Scripture Doctrine, pp. 189,190. This, it would seem, is a clear 
declaration of entire dependance on divine influence for the efficiency 
in the great work of sanctification. But Professor Finney’s com¬ 
mentary puts another face upon the whole matter. He says: “ The 
atonement and divine influence were not necessary to make men able 
to do their duty, but to induce in them a willingness to do it.” a The 
influence used by God in the whole work of salvation, according to 
this gentleman, is nothing more than “ exerting influence over mind 
by and through the presentation of truth to the mind.” This he calls 
“ a divine moral suasion.” b Mr. Finney says: “ With many, to deny 
a physical divine influence in regeneration, to deny that the Spirit of 
God is employed to make men able, and [to hold, I suppose he means] 
that he only employs his agency in persuading them to be willing, is 
to deny the divine agency altogether.” And then adds: “ What do 
they mean ? I am afraid of these men.” Ah ! my dear sir, and I am 
sorry to be obliged to say, that “ these men” have no little reason to 
be “ afraid of” you —afraid lest you should spoil others, as I fear you 
have spoiled yourself, with your vain philosophy, or ultra speculations. 


Oberlin Evangelist, vol. iv, No. 18. 


b Ibid. 


190 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Wesleyan view. Such is the following : “Perfection 
in holiness implies a full and perfect discharge of our 
entire duty, of all existing obligations in respect to God 
and all other beings.—It is ‘loving God with all our 
heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, 
and our neighbour as ourselves.’ It implies the entire 
absence of all sinfulness, and the presence and all- 
pervading influence of pure and perfect love—the con¬ 
secration of the whole being to God,” &c. And the 
illustrations of this doctrine, and the arguments em 
ployed to prove it, are generally the same as are em¬ 
ployed by us. And, 

2. Much that they say upon the negative, viz., what 
Christian perfection is not, is in perfect -accordance 
with the language of our standards. 

3. But when they speak of perfection as “ perfect 
obedience to the moral law,” they leave the Wesleyan 
phraseology. I do not pretend to say precisely what 
they mean by this language, only that it is language we 
do not use; and, as it is generally understood, it is 
language which does not convey our notion of Chris¬ 
tian perfection.* 

* Still another objectionable feature in the Oberlin theology is, that 
it makes Christian perfection to consist in “ disinterested benevo¬ 
lence,” and this is something either wholly unintelligible or grossly 
absurd. The following are Professor Finney’s explanations of this 
doctrine :—“ If he [God] send your companions or children to hell, 
you will be under obligations to praise him for it. If he send your 
children, or even yourself, to hell, you will be under an eternal obli¬ 
gation to praise him for it. It will always be true that he did it be¬ 
cause it was right, because the public good demanded it, and it was 
therefore his duty to do it.”* Again he says : “ If the rule of right, 
if the highest good of the universe demand that you be sent to hell 
it is God’s duty to send you there, and you have no right to object, 
but are bound to consent with all your heart.” b It has now, it would 

* Oberlin Evangelist, vol, iv, No. 19. 


b Ibid. 


191 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 

> 

4. When they urge that “ the law cannot require us 
to love God or man as well as we might have been able 
to love them, had we always improved all our time in 
obtaining all the knowledge we could in regard to their 
nature, character, and interests,”—and that “ the law 
of God does not imply or suppose that our powers are 
in a perfect state ; that our strength of body or mind is 
what it would have been, had we never sinned,” &c.; 
in all this they leave the Wesleyan track. Did they 

seem, come to this :—that when you are prepared ** to consent with 
all your heart” that God “ should send your companions, your chil¬ 
dren, or even yourself, to hellshould “ the rule of right, the highest 
good of the universe, demand” it, you have then attained to that 
“ disinterested benevolence” which is the sum of Christian perfection! 
And we must believe, too, that “ it is God’s duty ” to do all this. 

The phraseology, perhaps, requires no remark. Assigning a 
“duty ” to God, is as absurd as it is novel. 

This effort reduces a great practical truth to a mere speculation. 
And the speculation itself, as I said in the opening of this note, is 
either wholly unintelligible or grossly absurd. If the professor means 
that we must now be willing, should we ultimately prove unfaithful, 
that God should finally send us to hell, the great difficulty would be 
for most persons so to analyze their feelings as to be able to determine 
whether they had reached this point or not. Upon the first effort to 
do this, they would be likely to find that they were not willing to be 
damned , under any circumstances. And if their hearts were right 
with God, they would most certainly be unwilling to prove unfaithful, 
and, associating unfaithfulness and perdition, they would feel an in¬ 
stinctive dread and abhorrence of both. What, then, must be done ? 
Must they be told that they cannot truly say, “ Thy will be done,” 
and “ every thing short of this state of the will is rebellion,” and con¬ 
sequently they are in the gall of bitterness ? 

But are we to understand that now being in a state of rebellion 
against God, and of course in the way to hell, we must now be willing 
that God should send us there, and when we are eternally damned, 
we are then “ bound to consent with all our heart” to be so damned. 
The idea is revoltingly absurd. It is asserting that we are bound to 
do what, under the circumstances, is naturally and morally impossible. 
Is this the perfection of the gospel ? 


192 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


say this of the gospel , and not of the law , there would 
be no difference between us. All this is true of the 
law of liberty —of the law of faith , but we consider 
nothing of the kind can be said of the original law, 
without truly lowering its claims. 

5. The phraseology here employed seems to tend 
toward a confounding of the law and the gospel—of the 
covenant of works and the covenant of grace; and 
makes salvation predicable of obedience to the law, 
contrary to the doctrine of St. Paul. I now only speak 
of the logical tendency of the language employed by 
these writers, not pretending that they adopt what seems 
to me to be the legitimate consequence of their posi¬ 
tions. 

6. But let us not forget that these divines do not 
profess to be Methodists, nor to derive their doctrine 
or phraseology from Methodist standards. We conse¬ 
quently cannot find fault with them for using their own 
terms, or such language as they think best adapted to 
express the sense of the Scriptures upon the subject. 
And though we cannot adopt that portion of their 
phraseology excepted to, yet, so far as we can, we 
should be happy to agree with them, and extend to 
them our sympathies and our fellowship. 

My object in these remarks, if I know my own heart, 
is truly kind and brotherly. I rejoice to believe, that 
whatever difference there may be between us in the 
modes of expression sometimes employed, there maj 
be a perfect agreement as to the doctrine of Christian 
perfection, and also as to its experience and practical 
influence.* By this exhibition of the differences be- 

* So I charitably concluded, with all the light I then had, but I am 
now compelled to fear the case is otherwise. In addition to the evi¬ 
dence of views radically defective which 1 have referred to in pre¬ 
ceding notes, I will here give another instance. Professor Finney 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


193 


tween the Wesleyan and the Oberlin theories of per¬ 
fection, I would answer three objects :—I would satisfy 
reasonable inquiries; I would guard our own people 
against adopting hastily a phraseology which would 

insists much that the state of mind which he calls Christian perfection 
is necessary to a state of gracious acceptance. In showing “ what is 
implied in being willing that God should do right,” the professor says: 
“ It implies the spirit of perfect benevolence. No man is willing that 
God should in all things do right, who is not disinterestedly and per¬ 
fectly benevolent.” 1 Next he attempts to prove that “this state of 
mind is indispensable to salvation;” and under this head he says: 
“ There cannot possibly be any virtue or holiness in one who is 
unwilling that God should in all things do right.” b Again: “ Unless 
you are, according to your knowledge, as upright as God is, you 
are not willing he should do right, you are in rebellion against 
him, and cannot be in a state of justification with God.” c And in 
another place this author tells us explicitly, that “ nothing short of 
that state of the will that is for the time being as perfectly conformed 
to the will of God as is the will of the inhabitants of heaven can, by 
any possibility, be true religion.”* 1 

Now, the logical conclusion from all this is, that a man is either 
“ as perfectly conformed to the will of God as the inhabitants of 
heaven;”—“ according to his knowledge, as upright as God is;”— 
or “ there cannot possibly be any virtue or holiness in” him;—he is 
“ in rebellion against God, and cannot be in a state of justifica¬ 
tion.” This, so far as I can see, annihilates the doctrine of Christian 
perfection at once. According to these views, no man can be a 
Christian at all, unless he is one in the highest sense possible. And 
of course, there are no Christians in the world, or Christian perfection 
is an attainment common to them all. This, I say, is sweeping away 
the doctrine of Christian perfection with a stroke. With these notions 
we can neither hold any fellowship nor make any compromise. And 
if this is the point to which the Oberlin divines have finally arrived, 
and if they have deliberately settled upon it, we must, though reluc¬ 
tantly, conclude, that after all they have said correctly upon the sub¬ 
ject of Christian perfection, they have finally taken up views essen¬ 
tially defective, and views with which, as Wesleyans, we can have 
do sympathy. 

* Oberlin Evangelist 70 I iv, No. 19. b Ibid. c Ibid. 

& Vol. iv, No. 15. ^ 


194 


SCRIPTURE D0CTR1IME OF 


make them inconsistent with themselves ; and I would 
invite a review and a more complete exposition of the 
points involved. 

I must now close this lecture. The present state of 
the controversy may be gathered from the sequel of 
these lectures. 


LECTURE X. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN PERFECTION 
CONSIDERED. 

“ Come now, and let us reason together.” Isa. i, 18. 

The purpose of this lecture shall be to examine 
several leading objections which are urged against the 
doctrine of Christian perfection. 

1. It is urged that this doctrine is a part of the great 
heresy brought in by Pelagius, and cherished through 
the dark ages, and still rife in the Church of Rome. 

In an article on “ Christian Perfection” in “ the 
Christian Review,” published in Boston under the 
auspices of the Baptist denomination, we have these 
statements :—“ Pelagianism produced perfectionism ; 
perfectionism demands Pelagianism for its support; 
it can flourish in no other soil; it cannot be engrafted 
upon our evangelical scheme; it can derive thence no 
congenial nourishment; it may adhere for a while to 
the surface ; but must ultimately be thrown off by the 
very action of vitality. Wherever we find it growing 
in luxuriance, we may therefore know the nature of 
the soil upon which we tread. Before the evangelical 
church can admit perfection into her creed, she must 
tear up from their old foundations some of her most 
important and long-cherished doctrines. She must 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


195 


modify her whole views of human depravity, of the 
nature of regeneration, of the Spirit’s influence, and 
of the holiness of the divine law. She must allow 
either that grace is nothing but the free use of our 
faculties; or, that it is conferred according to human 
merit; and the final step must be to exchange the 
doctrine of justification by faith for that w T hich teaches 
that there is no reconciliation to God without a perfect 
obedience to the law.” “ Doubtless, the advocates of 
perfectionism will not deny that they have adopted, ir 
the main, the Pelagian scheme. Some additions there 
may be, but surely no improvement. We do not inti 
mate by this, that they call any man master; they may 
be allowed the honour of entire originality; for there 
are cycles in human thought as well as in the planetary 
system ; opinions rise and set, as the stars ; and when 
the circling years bring round old errors, there are 
always congenial minds to which they will present 
themselves, as bearing all the characteristics of ori¬ 
ginal and far-reaching thought. Perfectionism is again 
to have its day; and we regret to find that, in certain 
sections, its baneful influences are already visible, so 
much so as to strengthen the natural apprehension that 
the evil consequences which have hitherto attended 
this doctrine are destined to attend it still.”* 

It will be quite sufficient, in reply to this objection, 
to advert to the radical difference between the Pelagian 
and the Wesleyan theories. One presents a strictly 
legal perfection—perfect conformity to the law; while 
the other sets forth an evangelical perfection—perfect 
conformity to the terms of the gospel. One denies the 
doctrine of the native corruption of the human heart 
and the direct influences of the Spirit; while the other 
asserts these doctrines most explicitly and constantly. 

* No. for June, 1842. 


196 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


One holds that perfection may be attained through the 
efforts of mere natural ability; the other utterly rejects 
this doctrine, as contrary to God’s word, and on the 
other hand steadily asserts that, so far from being able 
perfectly to keep the law through the force of our 
natural powers, we can absolutely do nothing good 
“ without the grace of God by Christ preventing (or 
going before) us, that we may have a good will, and 
working with us, when we have that good will.”* And 
finally, one system holds the merit of works; while 
the other denounces that doctrine as heretical, and 
predicates all hope upon the merits of Jesus Christ. 

Now, in all candour, I ask any intelligent and un¬ 
prejudiced person to point out the smallest family like¬ 
ness between the two theories. I know they both em¬ 
ploy the word perfection , and assert that it is in a sense 
predicable of man in his present state. And does not 
the Bible do the same? and are not our opponents 
compelled to admit it? And have we not seen that 
Augustine and Turretin, and the reformers generally, 
do the same ? All admit perfection in some sense. Is 
the Bible, then, a system of Pelagianism and Roman¬ 
ism? Were the reformers Pelagians and Romanists? 
Is Dr. Woods a Pelagian ? The charge of Pelagianism 
does, indeed, on several points in which Wesleyan 
Methodists totally disagree with him, seem to lie against 
the Andover professor. The perfection he admits is 
a legal perfection. And he maintains that we may 
attain this perfection by natural ability. N.or should it 
be forgotten that the “ new school divines” generally, 
if I understand them, as clearly and as fully as did 
Pelagius himself, deny the doctrine of hereditary de¬ 
pravity , and assert that all sin consists in voluntary 

* See Art. viii, Articles of Religion, Doctrine and Discipline of the 

M. E. Church. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 197 

action. And I understand the Christian Review to 
follow in the wake of this class of divines. 

Now, how well it becomes the gentlemen who hold 
these dogmas to charge Pelagianism upon us, I leave 
for the candid to judge. It is a cheap way to meet an 
opponent or put down a theory, to give it a bad name, 
or in some way bring it under public odium. It is, 
however, much more consistent with Christian can¬ 
dour, and with the principles of fair and honourable 
discussion, to meet what we would oppose upon the 
ground of its own merits ; to direct our inquiries solely 
to the question, Is it true ? Upon this ground Wes¬ 
leyan Methodists have never shrunk from the field of 
discussion. And whenever their opponents may wish 
to meet them here, they will not find themselves in the 
quiet possession of the ground. We have learned 
“earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to 
the saints,” and we shall probably continue to practise 
upon the lesson so often as need may require : always, 
however, allowing our opponents the liberty to think 
for themselves, though never the privilege of misre¬ 
presenting us. Now let the gentleman of the Chris¬ 
tian Review fully understand that as Wesleyans we 
do most explicitly “ deny” that we “ have adopted in 
the main the Pelagian scheme.” We also deny the 
smallest tendency in our system to that “ scheme ;” his 
confident assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. 

2. It is objected that perfectionism is always identi¬ 
fied with fanaticism. Instances in proof are given 
from the history and extravagance of the Cathari * of 
primitive times, the Anabaptists , Familists, Ranters, 
&c. 

* This is an appellation by which the Novatians of the third century 
were distinguished. This party was originated by Novatus, a presby¬ 
ter of Africa and Novatianus, a presbyter of Rome, who, it is alleged, 


198 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Upon this objection I will make three observations. 
The first is, that there probably was some wheat among 
the chaff in all these classes of errorists: how much, 
we can now scarcely tell, for they do not speak for 
themselves through the pages of history, but are gene¬ 
rally reported by their enemies. Secondly. While they 

by vile arts procured himself to be made a bishop. Their distinguish¬ 
ing doctrine was, “ that the lapsed upon no conditions of repentance 
whatsoever ought to be received again into the peace and communion 
of the church.” They inveighed, probably not without much reason, 
against the Catholics, as they called themselves, on account of the 
want of discipline, and separated themselves from those who had 
apostatized, and those who connived at them. They were finally 
excommunicated as heretics and schismatics. They were called, or, 
as my authority says, styled themselves, “ Cathari , the pure, undefiled 
party.” 

That Novatianus was not so bad a man as he is sometimes represent, 
ed to have been, we may infer from what St. Cyprian says of him. He 
only charges him with schism, supposing this to be a sufficient reason 
for placing upon him the seal of reprobation. Says he : “ As to the 
person of Novatianus, dearest brother, of whom you desire some 
account, and the heresy he has introduced, I must tell you, in the first 
place, that I don’t look upon myself obliged to be-very inquisitive what 
it is he teaches, since he teaches it in schism: for whoever he is, or 
however gifted, he is no Christian, I am sure, while he is not in the 
church of Christ. Let him value himself as much as he pleases, and 
pride himself in his philosophy and eloquence ; yet he who holds not 
to the brotherhood, and the unity of the church, has forfeited even all 
he was before.” 4 

Milner, after an examination of the subject at some length, comes 
to the following conclusions in relation to the Cathari :—“We seem, 
however, by comparing together several fragments of information, to 
have acquired some distinct ideas of these Cathari: they were a plain, 
unassuming, harmless, and industrious race of Christians, condemning, 
by their doctrine and manners, the whole apparatus of the reigning 
idolatry and superstition, placing true religion in the faith and love 
of Christ, and retaining a supreme regard for the divine word.” b 

» See Reeves’ translation of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, &c., note, 
vol. ii, p. 360. 

b History of the Church, chap iii, cent. xii. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


199 


held many errors, they certainly held some truths; 
and it is not to be presumed, if they chanced to acknow¬ 
ledge some doctrine of the gospel, that in consequence 
it thenceforward became vitiated. And finally , so far 
as the evidence of history speaks intelligibly, the per¬ 
fection held by these fanatics, like that held by some 
of our own times, and in our own country, was either a 
mystical perfection, consisting in a fancied union 
with Christ, and a spiritual transformation to a sort of 
angelic nature, or an Antinomian perfection, which 
consists in the abrogation or destruction of all law, and 
a consequent exemption from its claims.* 

So that to these classes of perfectionists Wesleyan 
Methodists hold as distant a relationship as they do to 
the various classes of Pelagians. Indeed, no stronger 
evidence of the truth of this conclusion can in reason 
be asked than ‘ that furnished by the writings of Mr. 
John Wesley. The perfection held by him is as con¬ 
sistent with a sound state of the mental faculties as 
it is productive of a sober and devout life. Those 
who hold it may in some instances be fanatics, and so 
may those who hold any other doctrine of the Bible. 
For this we are not responsible, unless it can be shown 
that the doctrine as held by us legitimately tends to 
fanaticism. 

* Perhaps I might safely have left the Anabaptists out of the ques¬ 
tion, as they will probably be safe in the hands of our friend of the 
Christian Review. Whether they were such fanatics and perfection¬ 
ists as is pretended by some of the later reformers, and by several 
historians, is a matter of a little more interest to him than to me. It 
is, indeed, well for the church and the world, that the respectable 
denomination which claim to have descended from this class of Chris, 
tians have retained their orthodox principles without inheriting their 
fanaticism ., and especially that they totally discard the heresy of 
perfectionism , which, it is said, constituted so prominent a part of 
their creed. 


200 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


3. It is alleged that this doctrine of perfection was 
opposed by the pious reformers, who asserted with one 
voice, “perfection is not attainable; it is impossible 

As to the reformers, I have already given sufficient 
evidence that their opposition was principally directed 
against a species of perfection that we have no more 
fellowship for than they had, or than our opponents 
now have. But the evidence is abundant that these 
writers, after Augustine and Jerome, did admit a 
qualified perfection. Turretin, as we have seen, ad¬ 
mits several kinds of perfection ; and Beza, in answer 
to the objection made to his argument against legal 
perfection, that “ the faithful are said to be perfect in 
this life,” says : “ There is a twofold perfection ; the 
one incomplete, the which is an endeavour or care to 
obey God in the observation of his precepts : the other 
is termed complete; this is the justice'which the law 
requireth, namely, a perfect and absolute justice, ac¬ 
cording to that measure which man performed to God 
in his innocence. In the first sense the saints are said 
to be perfect, not in the last.”! Now, what is all this 
but clearly asserting the doctrine of Christian perfec¬ 
tion ? And a volume might easily be made of similar 
quotations from the same class of writers. 

It is not pretended, however, that in their specific 
explanations the reformers give us the whole of the 
Wesleyan system upon the subject. But we think it 
no greater sin to differ from them in the mode of stating 
this doctrine than when they follow Augustine, as most 
of those our opponents call reformers do, upon the 
subject of predestination,. partial atonement, and un¬ 
conditional perseverance. Upon all these points we 
choose to go to the Bible for our light. 

* Christian Review, June, 1842, p. 242. 

t Golden Chaine, p, 190. 4to. 1597. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


201 


4. It is asserted that perfection is not predicable of 
humanity in the present life. The weaknesses and 
frailties of human nature absolutely forbid it. 

Let it be noted here, in the first place, that Wesleyan 
Methodists do not hold a perfection which excludes the 
infirmities of human nature, and which implies perfect 
obedience to the Adamic law , but the perfection they 
hold excludes the turpitude of human nature, and im¬ 
plies loving God with all the heart. This qualifica¬ 
tion, however, avails nothing with our opponents, for 
they consider the loving God with all the heart the 
same thing as perfect and unsinning obedience to the 
original law of purity, and of course deny the one as 
strongly as they do the other. 

Calvin says : “ Our assertion, respecting the impos¬ 
sibility of observing the law, must be briefly explained 
and proved ; for it is generally esteemed a very absurd 
sentiment, so that Jerome has not scrupled to denounce 
it as accursed. What was the opinion of Jerome I 
regard not; let us inquire what is truth. I shall not 
•here enter into a long discussion of the various species 
of possibility : I call that impossible which has never 
happened yet, and which is prevented by the ordination 
and decree of God from ever happening in future. If 
we inquire from the remotest period of antiquity, I as¬ 
sert that there never has existed a saint who, surrounded 
with a body of death, could attain to such a degree of 
love as to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, 
and with all his mind ; and, moreover, that there never 
has been one who was not the subject of some inordi¬ 
nate desire.”* 

From this passage it appears clearly that Calvin de¬ 
nied the practicability of perfect obedience to the law 
of love. Dr. Woods admits the practicability of this 

* Institutes, book ii, chap, vii, sec. 5. 


202 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


obedience, but denies the fact that any ever have attain¬ 
ed, or ever will attain to such obedience. But the 
great Geneva master denies both ; and, in direct con¬ 
tradiction of Dr. Woods and other new-divinity writers, 
“ calls that impossible which has never happened yet, 
and which is prevented by the ordination and decrees 
of God.” In this respect I conceive the great master 
far more consistent than his disciples. But not to 
dwell here. 

My object in introducing this passage at present 
is to present fairly, and from the highest authority, 
the proposition which I intend to controvert; that is, 
“ that there never has existed a saint who , surrounded 
with a body of death , could attain to such a degree of 
love as to love God with all his heart , with all his 
soul , and with all his mind” 

I suppose that the heart, soul, mind, and strength, 
embrace the whole intellectual and moral man—the 
intellect, sensibilities, and the will, and that our capa¬ 
bility to love God is co-extensive with these powers 
and susceptibilities of the mind ; that capability implies 
power or ability; and that we can do any thing that we 
have power or ability to do. Consequently, to say that 
a man cannot love God with all his heart, &c., is the 
same as to say that he cannot love God with all his 
power, or ability, which is the same as to say that a 
man has power to love God, and has not power to love 
God—or that he can love God, and that he cannot love 
God at the same time, which is a contradiction. If the 
assertion were that no man can love God with more 
than all his heart, no one would object—this would not 
in the least conflict with our hypothesis. Evangelical 
Arminians hold that the gospel requires of us, 
as a condition of salvation, just the amount of 
holiness and obedience which answers to our divinely 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


203 


aided powers, and no more. And it seems ex¬ 
tremely absurd to say that we cannot “attain” 
to that. Let those who relish such absurdities, main¬ 
tain them; but surely an attempt to refute them 
would be wholly useless. 

5. It is objected that there are no examples of this 
perfection in the history of man since the fall. 

In answer to this objection it may be observed, first, 
that if the fact asserted in the objection were conceded, 
the attainableness of perfection might still be main¬ 
tained ; for to prove any thing attainable we are not 
bound to prove that some one has attained it: though, 
on the other hand, proving that some one has attained 
to a state, proves also that it is attainable. And the 
fact that perfect Christians are recognised in the Scrip¬ 
tures, has generally, in this discussion, been adduced 
in proof of the attainableness of Christian perfection; 
for it is a necessary logical consequence, that if any 
have attained to this state, others similarly circum¬ 
stanced may make the attainment. The objection then 
is wholly irrelevant, and may be left here. But as the 
fact of the existence of perfect Christians is a valid 
affirmative argument on our side, I shall resume the 
consideration of it when I come to adduce proof posi¬ 
tive of the proposition, that Christian perfection is at¬ 
tainable in this life. 

6. It is objected, that “the nearer Christians arrive 
to perfection in the present world, the further they 
seem to themselves to he from it.”* 

No wonder the author of this objection thinks “this 
may appear paradoxical to some.” I presume it would 
appear so to himself, if his vision were not obscured by 
the mist of prejudice. His cases are not to the point; 
they only prove that when a person is divinely enlight- 
* Dr. Pond. See Biblical Repository, vol. i, p. 54. 


204 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


ened, his self-righteousness leaves him. He had pre¬ 
viously thought himself very good; but now he sees 
himself as he is. But supposing him to go on from 
this point; to leave “ the principles of the doctrine of 
Christ,” and “ go on to perfection,” does he seem to 
himself every moment to recede from it ? When St. 
Paul said, “ Forgetting the things which are behind, I 
press toward the mark,” &c., did he seem to himself 
to be going back ? I doubt this. And though I do not 
question that the holier men are here, the more they 
see and feel their dependance, and the more they loathe 
and abhor themselves ; yet it is not so plain to me that 
they do not make sensible advances ; that their faith is 
not strengthened, their hopes brightened, and their joys 
enhanced in proportion as they advance in holiness. 

7. It is objected that we hasten the work of sanctifi¬ 
cation to too sudden a conclusion. The Christian Re¬ 
view says : “We have supposed that Christian growth, 
like physical, must be gradual; that the believer goes 
from strength to strength, and from grace to grace; 
that, in the progress of religion within him, he gains 
victory after victory over self and sin, and tramples in 
the dust one spiritual foe after another, until he comes 
to the measure of the stature of the fulness of his Lord. 
We had supposed it unsafe to affirm that any evil pas¬ 
sion was wholly crushed, which circumstances might 
resuscitate. The sleeping lion may rush again from 
the lair, where he lay calm and still, as if he had been 
dead. But if Mr. Wesley’s theory be true, we have 
found a royal road to holiness.”* 

Our objector does well in supposing a growth in 
holiness, and that the Christian “gains victory after 
victory”—all this is true, and as true of a person wholly 
sanctified as of any one else. But as to his “ sleeping 
* No. xxviii, p. 412. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


205 


lion,” there is a little more doubt. Mr. Toplady says : 
“ I do not know whether the strivings of inherent cor¬ 
ruption for mastery be not frequently more violent in a 
regenerate person than even one who is dead in tres¬ 
passes : as wild beasts are sometimes the more ram¬ 
pant and furious for being wounded.”* 

Mr. Toplady supposes “inbred corruptipn in a re¬ 
generate person” to be “wounded” indeed, but still 
“ rampant and furious;” but our reviewer represents 
it as only asleep —lying “ calm and still as if it had 
been dead.” But neither of these views seem to an¬ 
swer to those of the apostle, who says : “ Our old man 
is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be 
destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin,” 
Rom. vi, 6. Here the beast is n cither quietly asleep, 
nor rampant and furious , but crucified. The lion is 
wounded indeed, but it is with so deep and deadly a 
thrust that he is struggling in the agonies of death. 
The body of sin is not merely put to sleep or bound 
with cords, but nailed to the cross, where mortality is 
rapidly carrying on its work. 

As to this “ royal road to holiness,” a few remarks 
may be proper. The notions sustained by the objector 
are, that it must be a long time ere the Christian can 
attain to entire holiness: for “ Christian growth, like 
physical, must be gradual.” The fact is in a sense 
true, but it does not prove his point. We make no 
question as to the gradual growth of a Christian, either 
before or after his entire sanctification, but acknow¬ 
ledge and maintain the fact in relation to both periods. 
But the question we raise is, whether the body of sin 
in the Christian must necessarily live, and, if it is not 
“ rampant and furious,” at least be asleep, “ calm and 
still,” as long as he lives :—whether the work of de- 
* Caveat—Works, p. 321. 


206 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


struction upon the members of this body must be slow, 
and of long continuance. Now, if this is so, there 
would be likely to be some Scripture warrant for the 
conclusion. But we know of no such warrant. On 
the contrary, the imagery employed to illustrate the 
progress and consummation of this work generally im¬ 
plies rapidity and despatch. 

The process of mortification is employed to illustrate 
the process of entire sanctification. “ Mortify there¬ 
fore your members which are upon the earth,” Col. 
iii, 5. “ If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds 

of the body, ye shall live,” Rom. viii, 13. Now, let 
mortification begin in a member of the human body, 
and, if not arrested, it very soon completes its work. 
The process is not slow and long, continuing for years. 

Again, the process of death hy crucifixion is em¬ 
ployed in like manner to represent the process of the 
death of our corruptions. “ Our old man is crucified 
with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed,” 
Rom. vi, 6. Now, but a few hours are necessary for 
the consummation of the process of crucifixion, and it 
could not, in the nature of the case, be protracted. 

Cleansing the leper seems to be employed in the 
same way. “ Purge me with hyssop, and I shall 
be clean,” Psa. li, 7. This process, too, was short 
occupying, inclusive of all the ceremonies prescribed, 
but a few days. 

The process of refining metals is employed to the 
same purpose. “I will turn my hand upon thee, and 
purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy 
tin,” Isa. i, 25. This, I need not say, is not a long and 
tedious process, but is soon accomplished. 

Lastly, the process of leaven working in a mass of 
meal is employed to represent the process of trans¬ 
forming the heart. “ The kingdom of heaven is like 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


207 


unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three 
measures of meal, till the whole was leavened,” Matt, 
xiii, 33. This process, as in all the preceding cases, 
is very soon completed. 

Now it is very probable our reviewer would have 
selected another class of figures to represent the pro¬ 
gress of the work of sanctification. Mr. Toplady has 
an illustration which would doubtless suit him much 
better. He says : “ Naturalists tell us that the oak is 
a full century in growing to a state of maturity: yet, 
though perhaps the slowest, it is one of the noblest, 
the strongest, and the most useful trees in the world. 
How preferable to the flimsy, watery, shooting wil¬ 
low !”* And lest the oak should too soon come to 
maturity, it might, forsooth, be best to have worms 
breed in its roots, and “ snakes and toads nestle” in its 
heart! 

But seriously, I am afraid of these illustrations. 
For in the first place, they are not taken from the 
Scriptures: and in the next place, I fear they may 
have a tendency too much to retard the work of sancti¬ 
fication. If the reviewer is fearful lest we should bring 
forward this work too rapidly, I confess my fear is lest 
he should make it progress too slowly; or, by prevent¬ 
ing all growth, should destroy it altogether—which 
may God, in his mercy, prevent! 

8. It is objected that the tendency of the doctrine of 
Christian perfection is decidedly injurious to the inte¬ 
rests of true religion. The Princeton Review holds 
the following language upon the subject:— 

“ Perfectionism, indeed, can never bear a rigid and 
impartial scrutiny, as to its visible effects, any more 
than as to the radical principles which produce them. 
Its grapes, however beautiful in the eye of the distant 
* Caveat—Works, p. 321. 


208 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE Ot 


or cursory spectator, are still the grapes of Sodom 
and its clusters are the clusters of Gomorrah. In pro¬ 
portion to the developments which are made, new evi¬ 
dence is afforded, that this heresy, however diversified, 
or modified by circumstances, is everywhere the same 
in its essential features, and in its tendency; ariayed 
alike against evangelical doctrine and order; fostering 
fanaticism and spiritual pride; and, whether it nomi¬ 
nally acknowledge or reject the ordinances of the gos¬ 
pel, taking away the grounds which support them, and 
robbing them of the salutary influence which, in their 
legitimate use, they are adapted and designed to 
exert.”* 

This is said in immediate connection with several 
severe charges against the Oberlin professors, but, it 
would seem, is designed for general application, as the 
reviewer refers it to the “ heresy, however diversified, 
or modified by circumstances.” So far as the reviewer 
would bring his charges to bear upon the Wesleyan 
theory of perfection, perhaps we may safely leave it to 
God and the world to judge whether “ its grapes are 
the grapes of Sodom; and its clusters the clusters of 
Gomorrah.” Indeed, I should not fear much to leave 
it to the candour of the reviewer himself, to judge of 
the justice of his own charges, if he would take the 
trouble to acquaint himself accurately with the practical 
influence of this doctrine among the Methodists. It is 
lamentable to see a writer of so much power, as this 
reviewer evidently is, close his eyes and strike at ran¬ 
dom. But we must forgive him, for he means well, 
though he does an act of cruel injustice. 

I would here beg leave to oppose to the sweeping 
censures of the reviewer, the opinions of the celebrated 
Alexander Knox, who was no Methodist, but had the 
* No. for July, 1842, p. 470. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


209 


candour to give even Methodists their due. In his 
correspondence with Bishop Jebb, letter 18, he says : 
“ In fact, I do think, that to err on the side of good 
nature will always be safest; and besides, I am per¬ 
suaded, that the Methodists, as a body—the Wesleyans 
I mean—deserve far more credit for what they believe 
rightly, than censure for what they think erroneously, 
And, particularly, their doctrine of perfection, in my 
mind, merits peculiar delicacy of treatment: the truth 
and excellence of it being most substantial; and the 
fault of it being, rather infelicity of expression, and 
misconception about some circumstances, than any 
radically false view.” 

And in letter 19 he resumes the subject; and though 
the letter was not finished, his judgment upon the sub¬ 
ject is clearly expressed, and in language, too, which 
shows most conclusively that it was not made up in the 
dark. Thus he proceeds :— 

“ I would ask any person of seriousness and candour, 
who knows well the ecclesiastical history of Britain 
during the by-past century, where would, or what 
would, our religion at this day be, if the Methodists 
had not made their appearance ? With all their foibles, 
I own I think they have been grand instruments of 
good, far beyond the limits of their own societies. I 
feel this, I hope, not without gratitude to the Author 
and Giver of all good things; and, therefore, am most 
cordially disposed myself, and cannot avoid persuading 
others, to deal gently and indulgently with them. Not, 
surely, to overlook their errors; but to touch them with 
all possible mildness, so as to compel, both themselves, 
and all others, to feel, that it was love of truth alone, 
and not any unkind temper, which dictated the censure. 

“ But I have another motive for such caution respect¬ 
ing the Wesleyan Methodists ; and that is, that I really 
14 


210 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


do think them so wonderfully right, in most of their 
views, as to render them, on the whole, much more 
the object of my estimation than my blame. Nay, the 
very point you look at in them—I mean, their view of 
Christian perfection—is, in my mind, so essentially 
right and important, that it is on this account, particu¬ 
larly, I value them, above other denominations of that 
sort. I am aware that ignorant and rash individuals 
expose what is in itself true, by their unfounded pre 
tensions, and irrational descriptions ; but, with the sin- 
cerest disapproval of every such excess, I do esteem 
John Wesley’s stand for holiness to be that which does 
immortal honour to his name. And I am assured, too, 
that, while numbers in the Methodist society abuse his 
doctrine, (to which his stress on sudden revolutions in 
the mind has, I think, contributed,) perhaps a still 
greater number (but a great number, I am sure) are 
excited, by what he has taught, to such inward and 
outward strictness, such deep self-denial, and such 
substantial piety and spirituality, as are scarcely to be 
found in any other society. In John Wesley’s views 
of Christian perfection are combined, in substance, all 
the sublime morality of the Greek fathers, the spiritu¬ 
ality of the mystics, and the divine philosophy of our 
favourite Platonists. Macarius, Fenelon, Lucas, and 
all of their respective classes, have been consulted and 
digested by him; and his ideas are, essentially, theirs. 
But his merit is, (after all just allowances for mixtures 
of the fanatical kind,) that he has popularized these 
sublime lessons in such a manner, in his and his bro¬ 
ther’s hymns, that he .... ( Unfinished.)”* 

The abuses of the doctrine, referred to by Mr. Knox, 
it is highly probable, were real, and they might, indeed, 

* See Thirty Years’ Correspondence between John. Jebb, &c., and 
Alexander Knox, &c., vol. i, pp. 98, 100, 101. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


211 


have originated from a misconception of Mr. Wesley’s 
views of “ sudden revolutions in the mind.” But no 
one was more ready to detect and correct these errors 
than was Mr. Wesley himself. We do not deny but 
the same species of fanaticism which was so trouble¬ 
some to the founder of Methodism is sometimes found 
among the Methodists in our own country in connec¬ 
tion with strong professions of holiness. I have not 
the least disposition to conceal or disguise any facts 
of this kind. But cannot these things be accounted 
for without reckoning them the legitimate fruits of our 
views of Christian perfection? A little examination 
will, I think, in all such cases, trace the source of these 
aberrations to the faults of the mental constitution, the 
education, or the habits of the subject. I am happy 
also to say in this connection, that I see no disposition 
in the Methodist ministry, or the great mass of the 
people, to foster, or even to tolerate, such instances 
of fanaticism. They are consequently, with us, “like 
angels’ visits, few and far between.” 

9. It is objected, “ That to suppose the state in ques¬ 
tion to be attainable, would be to suppose that which 
would disagree with a variety of known and acknow¬ 
ledged facts.” 

This objection is given in the words of Dr. Snod¬ 
grass , who sustains it by several particulars, which I 
shall now proceed to examine. 

1. The learned doctor says : “ It is a fact, that the 
strongest representations of Christian experience and 
practice , which are found in the Bible, are those which 
expressly exclude the notion of sinless perfection in 
this life, and include the idea of an onward movement 
to still higher degrees of proficiency and success.”* 

This argument proceeds upon the assumption that a 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 70. 


212 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


state of entire sanctification admits of no advance¬ 
ment. Whether this is true or not of the theory Dr. 
Snodgrass more particularly opposes, I shall not be 
careful to inquire, but shall show, in few words, that it 
is not true in relation to the theory sustained in these 
lectures. 

It will be remembered that we have found sanctifica¬ 
tion to imply both the death of sin, and the life of right¬ 
eousness. And when we speak of entire sanctification, 
as to the former part of it, we say it may be attained at 
once—it is an instantaneous work , and we are author¬ 
ized to look for its accomplishment now. And it must 
be admitted, that when this work is accomplished, it 
cannot in all future time be more than accomplished. 
But in relation to the latter part of this great work, viz., 
the life of righteousness, embracing all holy affections , 
and pious efforts , it is regarded as entirely progressive. 
There never will be, during our earthly pilgrimage, 
and probably during eternity itself, a point at which the 
redeemed soul will have reached a height of holiness 
which precludes further improvement. The destruc¬ 
tion of sin in the soul, and the growth of holiness, are 
two distinct things, though inseparably joined together, 
and, united, constitute the grand divisions of the great 
work of entire sanctification. The one is instanta¬ 
neous, the other gradual; and hence it is that we some¬ 
times say, with propriety, that the work of entire sanc¬ 
tification is both gradual and .instantaneous. So by a 
careful analysis of the subject, the theory is rescued 
from apparent contradiction. The objection then has 
no force against the Wesleyan theory. 

2. “ It is a fact, that there is no degree of piety or 
holy living , in this world , beyond which Christians are 
exempted from afflictions or trials ; such exemp¬ 
tion is neither contemplated in the word of God, nor 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


213 


realized in actual experience; and yet, nothing short 
of this would be suitable to a state of entire sanctifi¬ 
cation.”* 

It would be all that in justice could be demanded of 
us to show that we hold to the attainableness of no 
such state of perfection in this life as would exempt 
the possessor “ from afflictions or trials .” And indeed 
I know not that such a state is held by any one in his 
right senses. If the objection has any force, it must 
be upon the supposition that afflictions are in all cases 
to be regarded as a punishment for existing turpitude. 
And this, indeed, seems to be the ground assumed by 
the objector. “ All suffering,” says he, “ of every kind, 
is the associate of sin.”f We freely admit, that suffer¬ 
ing had never entered the system but for sin, and that 
sin is, in a sense, the cause of all suffering. But this 
by no means authorizes the conclusion that no one of 
the family of man can be freed from the guilt and the 
pollutions of sin without exemption from the physical 
evils to which humanity is heir, and which are entailed 
upon man while in this mortal state. I see no such 
conclusion legitimately following the premises. If, 
indeed, the objection be well-founded, how did it hap¬ 
pen that Christ “ was in all points tempted [and afflicted 
otherwise] like as we are, and yet without sin ?” 

3. “ It is a fact, that all Christians are directed to 
use the means of sanctification , as long as they live; 
there is no degree of holiness, in this life, supposed, 
in the word of God, to be attainable, beyond which 
they are represented as needless.”]: 

Here the gentleman beats a creature of his own 
imagination. Who holds a state of sanctification that 
renders the means of further improvement, and of se¬ 
curity against temptation, entirely nugatory ? If any 
* Page 76. ' t Page 79. t Page 80. 


214 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


entertain this notion, certainly we do not. In answer 
to a former objection, I have shown that the state of 
entire sanctification is a state of indefinite progression, 
and certainly means are appropriate, at least while we 
continue to be acted upon and moved forward in our 
duty by the ordinary stimulants and influences. In his 
amplification the gentleman proceeds :— 

44 In view of the Christian life, considered as a war¬ 
fare, believers are exhorted, in common, to ‘ fight the 
good fight of faith’—to 4 put on the whole armour of 
God’—to 4 be sober’—to ‘s^and fast’ and quit them¬ 
selves like men—having their 4 loins girt about with 
truth’—their ‘feet shod with the preparation of the 
gospel of peace’—and their whole persons guarded by 
4 the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, 
which is the word of God.’ And do these sound like 
addresses to an army, some of whom have fought all 
their battles, have conquered all their enemies, have 
placed their feet upon the neck of their last foe, and 
are ready to begin the celebration of the victory? Or, 
do they proceed upon the supposition, that the war is 
still in progress—that the armour is still needed—and, 
that other triumphs over the foe are still to be sought?”* 
Had the blessed Saviour no conflicts with the 
powers of hell ? Did he not maintain a conflict with 
the “devil” for 44 forty days in the wilderness?” And 
was he not assaulted upon 44 the pinnacle of the temple ?” 
And was he not free from sin notwithstanding? And 
must the saints suffer the devil to occupy a part of their 
hearts, in order to afford them an opportunity to exer¬ 
cise their graces ? Can there be no 44 warfare” without 
the remains of sin in the heart ? This is strange, to be 
sure. I always supposed it was one thing to have the 
unclean spirit expelled, and another to keep him out. 

* Page 83. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


215 


And as w# believe in no state of perfection in this life 
from which we are not liable to fall, and none that is 
not subject to the fiercest conflicts with the grand ad¬ 
versary of our souls, the objection is, so far as our 
theory is concerned, utterly without force. 

4. “ It is a fact, that, in the present world, there are 
none who either do, or can arrive, at a perfect 
knowledge of the truth ; and as sanctification is 
through the truth, it is not easy to see, under these 
circumstances, how any can be perfectly holy.”* 

Now this objection proceeds, so far as it has any 
application to the Wesleyan theory, upon the assump¬ 
tion that “perfect knowledge ” is necessary to perfect 
love. This we deny. We do not at all question but 
the perfection of knowledge to which we shall attain 
in heaven will be the means of greatly augmenting our 
love and our happiness. But not holding a perfection 
that admits of no increase, we do not feel the force 
of the objection. What prevents a sanctified soul,, 
though he knows “ hut in part,” of giving to God his 
little all? Because his power to love God, when he 
comes to heaven, is to be inconceivably greater than it 
now is, can die not now lay out the whole amount of 
the small stock of power he has ? Alas for us ! if this 
is legitimate reasoning upon the “ great and precious 
promises” of God’s word ! 

5. “ It is a fact, that, while Christians remain in the 
present world, they will have corruptible bodies ; 
this part of their nature will remain, substantially, as 
it was at the commencement of their Christian course ; 
and, in such a connection, it is not to be expected that 
they will arrive at a state of entire sanctification.”! 

That the saints will necessarily have “ corruptible 
bodies,” while they remain on earth, none doubt; but 
* Pages 83, 84. t Page 87. 


216 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


that they must consequently have corrupt stuls —souls 
morally defiled by sin—is not so clear. The mortality 
of the body, and the moral pollution of the soul, are 
not things so inseparably connected as this objection 
would seem to imply. But our author seems to think 
that death has something to do in the great work of 
sanctification. Thus he proceeds :— 

“ The union between the body and the soul, and the 
nature and extent of their influence, the one upon the 
other, I am well aware, are intricate, and, in many re¬ 
spects, inexplicable subjects. The fact itself, however, 
that their reciprocal influence is not only real and great, 
but constant and necessary, all will admit. And, in 
view of this influence, as recognised in Scripture and 
felt in the experience of all, I cannot doubt that the 
dissolution of the body, as followed by its resurrection, 
is one of the appointed means of sanctification.”* 

Now we object utterly to this doctrine of a death 
purgatory. It is wholly unsupported by the word of 
God—and not only so, but it delays the consummation 
of the work of sanctification not only until death, but 
beyond that period, even to the “ resurrection !” If 
“ the death of the body, as followed by its resurrection, 
is the appointed means of sanctification,” surely the 
end cannot precede the means; and of course the 
sanctification of the spirit will not be completed until 
the resurrection of the body!! And where will this 
unsanctified spirit be all this time ? No doubt, in some 
limbus patrum , undergoing the process of purifica¬ 
tion ! ! ! It is lamentable that such doctrine as this 
should be soberly advanced by a sound Protestant 
divine, and that it should have so weighty a sanction 
as the “ Presbyterian Board of Publication.”! 

But though the statement above quoted and remarked 
* Pages 87, 88. t See the title-page. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


217 


upon seems explicit, and utterly incapable of correction 
or mitigation, in other places the author seems slightly 
to swerve from his position. The following is an in¬ 
stance :— 

“ Surely, when the work of sanctification upon the 
soul is done, God will provide it with a better place 
of residence than this. It cannot be, that he will leave 
it any longer in such a situation—to ‘groan, being bur¬ 
dened’—to endure the lustings of the flesh—to be- an¬ 
noyed by the motions of sin, which proceed from the 
members—and to pass through successive stages and 
scenes of disease and pain. Instead of this, it is far 
more consistent to believe that, when perfectly deli¬ 
vered from sin, it will be emancipated at once—will 
put off the tabernacle in which it has lived while 
sojourning in this vale of tears—and rise to the mount, 
in which it is to be ‘ clothed upon’ with another and a 
better ‘house, which is from heaven.’”* 

Here, instead of making death “ the appointed means 
of sanctification,” our author tells us, “ that when per¬ 
fectly delivered from sin, it [the soul] will be emanci¬ 
pated at once—will put off the tabernacle,” &c. Now, 
it would seem, our author would some way, and by 
some means—he does not tell us by what or how—get 
the soul “ perfectly delivered from sin” before death, 
and of course it would seem difficult for him to make 
death a “ means of sanctification,” unless it can some 
way act by anticipation. That is, plainly enough, it 
must be a “ means of sanctification” before it takes 
place. This is a new theory of cause and effect, or 
antecedent and sequence ! 

But I will leave these vagaries. I have no pleasure 
in exposing their absurdity. They are to me a source 
of unfeigned grief. I did suppose the old Romish, or 
* Page 91. 


218 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


rather, more properly, Pagan, doctrine of purgatory 
long since exploded by all right-minded Protestants. 
I am not surprised to find it recognised in the formulas 
of faith put forth under the reign of Henry VIII., be¬ 
fore the Reformation had extended to the system of 
Christian doctrine ; but to find it, in substance, at'least, 
seriously advanced by a doctor of divinity of the Pres¬ 
byterian Church, and officially sanctioned bj^that much- 
respected denomination of Christians, is almost too 
much to believe possible. The whole must be set 
down to the credit of a strong attachment to a theory, 
and an inconceivable horror of a most destructive error 
which our good Presbyterian brethren call “ perfec¬ 
tionism,” and which has begun to make sad inroads 
upon the orthodoxy and purity of their church. 

I say not these things through spite or resentment, 
but because I suppose the occasion calls for plain 
dealing, and nothing else will at all reach the case. 
And after all this, will our opponents find serious fault 
with us for representing them as pleading for sin, and 
detracting from the glory of the Saviour ? Does not 
Dr. Snodgrass clearly make sin a sort of necessary 
evil —and call in death and the separate state to aid in 
its destruction ? If these views are promotive of holi¬ 
ness in the church, and honourable to its great Head, 
I am not as yet able to see how this is the case. To 
me it is manifest that this theory is not a part and 
parcel of the gospel of reconciliation, but rather a 
human device ; and very much like many others, which 
have been palmed upon the Christian system without 
authority, and to its great prejudice. 

Several objections yet remain to be considered; but 
I have occupied so much time upon those already exa¬ 
mined, I must now close this lecture. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


219 


LECTURE XI. 

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE-CONTINUED. 

“ But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein 
we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in 
the oldness of the letter.” Rom. vii, 6. 

% 

I am still longer to be detained upon objections, 
which are, no doubt, very honestly presented by our 
opponents to the theory we maintain. Some of these 
are far more important than others, and of course must 
have a larger share of attention. The present lecture 
will be wholly occupied in the consideration of one 
which is thought to be utterly unanswerable. Of 
course I must take time to investigate it fully. Ilf 
is supposed to lie against all the various theories of 
Christian perfection, and consequently is always pre¬ 
sented as an insuperable obstacle in the way of the 
doctrine, however modified. Let us proceed to give it 
due attention. 

10. It is objected, that the doctrine of the practicabi¬ 
lity of perfection dishonours God’s holy law, by lower¬ 
ing its claims to the level of human imbecility. 

This objection would be valid against the doctrine 
of legal perfection, but is not applicable to the Wes¬ 
leyan theory. It has indeed always been urged, as 
well against the latter as the former view by those who 
have arrayed themselves against the doctrine of Chris¬ 
tian perfection. Indeed, it is asserted by an eminent 
divine,* that the “ scheme of perfection,” which con 

* Rev. Dr. Pond. See Biblical Repository, second series, vol. i, 
page 45. 


220 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


templates “ fulfilling the whole divine law, contains 
more of truth than” either the system of “ imputed per¬ 
fection,” or that of “evangelical perfection.” So that 
we gain nothing with such opponents as he is by all 
our explanations and qualifications. Our theory of 
“ evangelical perfection” more fully and unpardonably 
dishonours the law, than the old Pelagian dogma of 
legal perfection. 

This learned author states the “ evangelical” system 
thus:— 

“ The second class of perfectionists are those who 
claim what they call an evangelical perfection. They 
do not profess to obey perfectly the divine law, or think 
that this is at all necessary. The moral law has been 
superseded by the law of faith. It has been annulled, 
in whole or in part, and the milder and less rigorous 
requisitions of the gospel have taken its place. It is 
these milder requisitions that the evangelical perfec¬ 
tionist (as he chooses to term himself) professes to ful¬ 
fil, and not the strict demands of the law. 

“To this theory it is sufficient to reply, that the 
moral law has not been superseded or annulled, but is 
in full force now throughout the universe. Our Sa¬ 
viour came to vindicate and honour the law, not to 
annul it. The dispensation of mercy is based upon it, 
but does not supersede or abate one iota of its claims. 
No person can become interested in the grace of the 
gospel, till he consents to the entire law&that it is good, 
and condemns himself for all his transgressions of it. 
We may frame for ourselves a standard of character, 
if we will, and live up to it, and call this perfection; 
but the Bible knows naught of such perfection. It is 
of no value in the sight of God.”* 

The gentleman says, according to the system of 
* See Biblical Repository, pp. 44, 45. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


221 


“ evangelical perfection, the moral law has been super 
seded by the law of faith but he does not tell us in 
what respects this “ class of perfectionists” hold this to 
be the case. Had he gone into the details of the sys¬ 
tem, he would have found that upon this point there is 
no real difference between them and the Westminster 
divines, and indeed all the orthodox Calvinists who 
have written since the days of the Reformation. The 
simple sense in which Wesleyans hold that “the 
moral law has been superseded by the law of faith,” 
is as the condition of human acceptance. Wesley’s 
views upon this subject are clearly expressed in his 
Plain Account of Christian Perfection, as follows :— 

“ Quest. 1 . How is ‘ Christ the end of the law 
for righteousness to every one that believeth ?’ Rom. 
x, 4. . 

“ Ans. In order to understand this, you must under¬ 
stand what law is here spoken of; and this, I appre¬ 
hend, is, (1.) The Mosaic law—the whole Mosaic dis¬ 
pensation ; which St. Paul continually speaks of as one, 
though containing three parts, the political, moral, and 
ceremonial. (2.) The Adamic law, that given to Adam 
in innocence, properly called ‘ the law of works.’ This 
is in substance the same with the angelic law, being 
common to angels and men. It required that man 
should use, to the glory of God, all the powers with 
which he was created. Now, he was created free 
from any defect, either in his understanding or his 
affections. His body was then no clog to the mind; 
it did not hinder his apprehending all things clearly, 
judging truly concerning them, and reasoning justly, 
if he reasoned at all. I say, if he reasoned; for pos¬ 
sibly he did not. Perhaps he had no need of reason¬ 
ing, till his corruptible body pressed down the mind, 
and impaired its native faculties. Perhaps, till then, 


222 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the mind saw every truth that offered as directly as the 
eye now sees the light. 

“ Consequently this law, proportioned to his origi¬ 
nal powers, required that he should always think, 
always speak, and always act precisely right, in every 
point whatever. He was well able so to do: and 
God could not but require the service he was able 
to pay. 

“ But Adam fell; and his incorruptible body became 
corruptible ; and ever since it is a clog to the soul, and 
hinders its operations. Hence, at present, no child of 
man can at all times apprehend clearly, or judge truly. 
And where either the judgment or apprehension is 
wrong, it is impossible to reason justly. Therefore it 
is as natural for a man to mistake as to breathe ; and 
he can no more live without the one than without the 
other : consequently no man is able to perform the ser¬ 
vice which the Adamic law requires. 

“ And no man is obliged to perform it; God does 
not require it of any man ; for Christ is the end of the 
Adamic, as well as the Mosaic law. By his death he 
hath put an end to both; he hath abolished both the 
one and the other, with regard to man ; and the obliga¬ 
tion to observe either the one or the other is vanished 
away. Nor is any man living bound to observe the 
Adamic more than the Mosaic law. (I mean it is not 
the condition either of present or future salvation.) 

“ In the room of this, Christ hath established 
another, namely, the law of faith. Not every one that 
doeth, but every one that believeth, now receiveth 
righteousness, in the full sense of the word ; that is, he 
is justified, sanctified, and glorified. 

“ Q 2. Are we then dead to the law ? 

“A. We are ‘dead to the law, by the body of 
Christ.’ given for us; Rom. vii, 4 ; to the Adamic as 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


223 


well as Mosaic law. We are wholly freed therefrom 
by his death, that law expiring with him. 

“ Q. 3. How, then, are we ‘ not without law to 
God, but under the law to Christ?’ 1 Cor. ix, 21. 

“A. We are without that law ; but it does not fol¬ 
low that we are without any law: for God has esta¬ 
blished another law in its place, even the law of faith : 
and wq are all under this law to God and to Christ; 
both our Creator and our Redeemer require us to ob¬ 
serve it. 

“ Q. 4. Is love the fulfilling of this law? 

“ A Unquestionably it is. The whole law under 
which we now are, is fulfilled by love, Rom xiii, 9, 10. 
Faith working or animated by love is all that God now 
requires of man. He has substituted (not sincerity, 
but) love, in the room of angelic perfection. 

“ Q. 5. How is ‘ love the end of the command¬ 
ment?’ 1 Tim. i, 5. 

“ A. It is the end of every commandment of God. 
It is the point aimed at by the whole and every part of 
the Christian institution. The foundation is faith, pu¬ 
rifying the heart; the end love, preserving a good con¬ 
science. 

“ Q. 6. What love is this ? 

“ A. The loving the Lord our God with all our 
heart, mind, soul, and strength; and the loving our 
neighbour, every man, as ourselves, as our own souls. 

“ Q. 7. What are the fruits or properties of this 
love ? 

“ St. Paul informs us at large, love is long-suffer¬ 
ing. It suffers all the weaknesses of the children of 
God ; all the wickedness of the children of the world ; 
and that not for a little time only, but as long as God 
pleases. In all, it sees the hand of God, and willingly 
submits thereto. Meantime it is kind. In all, and 


224 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


after all, it suffers, it is soft, mild, tender, benign. 
‘ Love envieth not;’ it excludes every kind and de¬ 
gree of envy out of the heart: * love acteth not rashly,’ 
in a violent, headstrong manner, nor passes any rash 
or severe judgment: it ‘ doth not behave itself inde¬ 
cently is not rude, does not act out of character: 
‘ seeketh not her own’ ease, pleasure, honour, or pro¬ 
fit: ‘is not provoked;’ expels all anger from the 
heart: ‘ thinketh no evil;’ casteth out all jealousy, 
suspiciousness, and readiness to believe evil: ‘ rejoi- 
ceth not in iniquity;’ yea, weeps at the sin or folly of 
its bitterest enemies : ‘ but rejoiceth in the truth;’ in 
the holiness and happiness of every child of man. 
‘ Love covereth all things,’ speaks evil of no man; 

‘ believeth all things’ that tend to the advantage of 
another’s character. It ‘hopeth all things,’ whatever 
may extenuate the faults which cannot be denied; and 
it ‘ endureth all things’ which God can permit, or men 
and devils inflict. This is ‘ the law of Christ, the per¬ 
fect law, the law of liberty.’ 

“ And this distinction between the ‘ law of faith’ 
(or love) and' ‘ the law of works,’ is neither a subtle 
nor an unnecessary distinction. It is plain, easy, and 
intelligible to any common understanding. And it is 
absolutely necessary, to prevent a thousand doubts and 
fears, even in those who do ‘ walk in love.’ 

“ Q. 8. But do we not ‘ in many things offend all,’ 
yea, the best of us, even against this law ? 

“A. In one sense we do not, while all our tem¬ 
pers, and thoughts, and words, and works spring from 
love. But in another we do, and shall do, more or 
less, as long as we remain in the body. For neither 
love nor the ‘unction of the Holy One’ makes us 
infallible : therefore, through unavoidable defect of 
understanding, we cannot but mistake in many things. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 225 

And these mistakes will frequently occasion something 
wrong, both in our temper, and words, and actions. 
From mistaking his character, we may love a person 
less than he really deserves. And by the same mis¬ 
take we are unavoidably led to speak or act, with 
regard to that person, in such a manner as is contrary 
to this law, in some or other of the preceding instances. 

“ Q. 9. Do we not then need Christ, even on this 
account ? 

“ A. The holiest of men still need Christ, as their 
prophet, as £ the. light of the world.’ For he does not 
give them light, but from moment to moment: the 
instant he withdraws, all is darkness. They still need 
Christ as their king; for God does not give them a 
stock of holiness. But unless they receive a supply 
every moment, nothing but unholiness would remain 
They still need Christ as their priest, to make atone 
ment for their holy things. Even perfect holiness is 
acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ.” Pp. 
106-113. 

Dr. Pond, in an effort to prove that the man who 
thinks himself already perfect will, almost of neces¬ 
sity, be led to lower the standard of duty, refers to this 
passage from Mr. Wesley as proof, in the following 
(very charitable) language :— 

“ Mr. Wesley did not intend, perhaps, to depress the 
standard of duty; but he held to the repeal of ‘the 
Adamic law,’ and thought it very consistent with per¬ 
fection that persons should fall into great errors and 
faults”* 

I regret exceedingly that the learned doctor should, 
either through prejudice or carelessness, have misre¬ 
presented Mr. Wesley in this case. The very import¬ 
ant qualification which Mr. Wesley has inserted in a 

* Biblical Repository, vol. i, p. 56. 

15 


226 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


parenthesis could scarcely have escaped the doctor’s 
notice ; and yet that qualification precludes the possi¬ 
bility of any such construction as he puts upon Mr. W.’s 
language, on any fair or honourable principles. The 
qualification is this: “ I mean it [that is, the Adamic 
law] is not the condition either of present or future 
salvation.” Now, does the doctor consider it the same 
thing to say thaU“ the Adamic law is not the condition 
either of present or future salvation,” as to say that that 
law is repealed ? If so, it will be but logically fair to 
conclude that, as he does not hold to “ the repeal of the 
Adamic law,” he must consider it as “ the condition 
of present or future salvation.” This is elevating “ the 
standard of duty” with a vengeance ! It is holding to 
salvation upon the conditions of the covenant of works, 
contrary to all his own standards. But not insisting 
further upon this conclusion, I will now attempt to make 
good the position with which I commenced, namely, 
that there is little or no difference between the Wes¬ 
leyan theory and its opposite, in relation to the sense 
in which the Adamic law is superseded by the law of 
faith. Luther, with all his strong views of the neces¬ 
sary continuance of indwelling sin through life, is as 
decisive upon the destruction of the law, as a condition 
of acceptance, as is Wesley himself. The great Ger¬ 
man reformer says : “ But after that faith is come , tee 
are no longer under a schoolmaster :—That is to say, 
we are free from the law, from the prison, and from 
our schoolmaster; for when faith is revealed, the law 
terrifieth and tormenteth us no more. Paul here 
speaketh of faith as it was preached and published to 
the world by Christ in the time before appointed. For 
Christ, taking upon him our flesh, came once into the 
world : he abolished the law with all its effects, and 
delivered from eternal death all those who received 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


227 


his benefit by faith. If, therefore, ye look unto Christ, 
and that which he hath done, there is now no law 
For he, coming in the time appointed, took away the 
law. Now, since the law is gone, we are not yet 
under the tyranny thereof any more; but we live in 
joy and safety under Christ, who now sweetly reigneth 
in us by his Spirit.”* 

Melancthon is equally decisive. “ It is difficult,” 
says he, “to understand how we are free from the law. 
For it is inscribed on the minds of men; so that to 
abolish the law would be the same as to destroy the 
mind and the creature of God. Therefore the law is 
not abrogated in such a sense that it should not be 
kept, but something else is proposed for justification, 
viz., the promise of reconciliation for the sake of 
Christ. Therefore the law is not removed, but the 
requirement of justification through the law , and the 
right of condemning men, (for no one has fulfilled it 
except Christ.) And that right of the law is taken 
away in respect to those only who by faith apprehend 
the justification promised through Christ. The law, 
therefore, is abrogated in respect to those who by faith 
have overcome the law, accusing, terrifying, and con¬ 
demning them. This the apostle means when he says, 
‘Ye are not under the law;’ that is, though you do 
not satisfy the law, yet consider that you are reputed 
righteous on account of Christ, not on account of your 
own fulfilment of the law, your own love, or works. 
And as faith brings the Holy Spirit, and a new life, it 
brings also wisdom, and a new righteousness, viz., 
love to God, and other emotions assenting to the law 
of God. For faith through Christ draws near to God. 
Therefore we are not liberated from the law in such a 
sense that it should not be kept, for it is necessary that 
* Commentary on Galatians, chap, iii, 25. 


228 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


it should be kept. And for this reason the Holy Spirit 
is given, that Christ may be glorified, and sin having 
been destroyed, the law might be truly accomplished 
in us. And hence the reason is manifest, why it is 
necessary that the law should be kept, while the cere¬ 
monies and judicial usages are entirely laid aside. It 
is because the law has reference to the emotions of the 
heart, which the Holy Spirit necessarily controls, (affert 
secum.) Therefore that part of the law stands in spi¬ 
ritual and eternal justice. But the other parts having 
reference to external rites, as they do not embrace 
eternal things, but things connected with time and 
place, do not remain.”* 

I next present an abstract of the views of Calvin 
upon this point. In his chapter entitled “ The har 
mony between the promises of the law and those of 
the gospel,” after some preliminaries he proceeds :— 
“ The consequence then is, that all mankind are proved 
by the law to be obnoxious to the curse and wrath of 
God ; in order to be saved from which, they need de¬ 
liverance from the power of the law, and emancipation 
from its servitude: not a carnal liberty, which would 
seduce us from obedience to the law, invite to all kinds 
of licentiousness, break down the barriers of inordinate 
desire, and give the reins to every lawless passion ; 
but a spiritual liberty, which will console and elevate 
a distressed and dejected conscience, showing it to be 
delivered from the curse and condemnation under which 
it was held by the law. This liberation from subjec¬ 
tion to the law, and manumission, (if I may use the 
term,) we attain, when we apprehend by faith the mercy 
of God in Christ, by which we are assured of the re- 

* Disputatio de discrimine Veteris etNovi Testamenti, deque Legis 
abrogatione- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


229 


mission of sins, by the sense of which the law pene¬ 
trated us with legal compunction and remorse. 

“For this reason all the promises of the law would 
be ineffectual and vain, unless we were assisted by the 
goodness of God in the gospel. For the condition of 
a perfect obedience to the law, on which they depend, 
and in consequence of which alone they are to be ful¬ 
filled, will never be performed. Now the Lord affords 
this assistance, not by leaving a part of righteousness 
in our works, and supplying part from his mercy, but 
by appointing Christ alone for the completion of right¬ 
eousness. For the apostle having said that he and 
other Jews, ‘ knowing that a man is not justified by the 
works of the law, believed in Christ,’ adds as a reason, 
not that they might be assisted to obtain a complete 
righteousness by faith in Christ, but ‘ that they might 
be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works 
of the law,’ Gal. ii, 16. If the faithful pass from the 
law to faith, to find righteousness in the latter, which 
they perceive to be wanting in the former, they cer¬ 
tainly renounce the righteousness of the law. There¬ 
fore, let wdiosoever will, now amplify the rewards 
which are said to await the observer of the law ; only 
let him remark, that our depravity prevents us from 
receiving any benefit from them, till we have obtained 
by faith another righteousness. Thus David, after 
having mentioned the reward which the Lord hath 
prepared for his servants, immediately proceeds to the 
acknowledgment of sins, by which it is annulled. In 
the nineteenth psalm, likewise, he magnificently cele¬ 
brates the benefits of the law; but immediately ex¬ 
claims, ‘ Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou 
me from secret faults,’ Psa. xix, 12. This passage 
perfectly accords with that before referred to, where, 
after having said, £ All the paths of the Lord ar^mercy 


230 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testi¬ 
monies,’ he adds, ‘For thy name’s sake, O Lord, par 
don mine'iniquity; for it is great,’Psa. xxv, 10, 11. 
So we ought also to acknowledge, that the divine fa¬ 
vour is offered to us in the law, if we could purchase 
* it by our works; but that no merit of ours can ever 
obtain it. 

“ What then, it will be said, were those promises 
given to vanish away without producing any effect? 
I have already declared that this is not my opinion. 
I assert, indeed, that they have no efficacy with respect 
to us as long as they are referred to the merit of works ; 
wherefore, considered in themselves, they are in some 
sense abolished. Thus that grand promise, ‘ Keep my 
statutes and judgments; which if a man do, he shall 
live in them,’ (Lev. xviii, 5,) the apostle maintains to 
be of no value to us, if we rest upon it, and that it will 
be no more beneficial to us than if it had never been 
given ; because it is inapplicable to the holiest of God’s 
servants, who are all far from fulfilling the law, and 
are encompassed with a multitude of transgressions. 
Rom. x, 5, &c. But when these are superseded by 
the evangelical promises, which proclaim the gratuitous 
remission of sins, the consequence is, that not only our 
persons, but also our works, are accepted by God ; and 
not accepted only, but followed by those blessings 
which were due by the covenant to the observance of 
the law. I grant, therefore, that the works of the faith 
ful are rewarded by those things which the Lord hath 
promised in his law to the followers of righteousness 
and holiness; but in this retribution it is always ne¬ 
cessary to consider the cause, which conciliates such 
favour to those works.” The learned Witsius har¬ 
monizes with Calvin. He says:—“ Having suffi¬ 
ciently considered the violation of the covenant bv sin, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


231 


let us now inquire whether, and how far, it is made 
void or abrogated by God himself. And first, we are 
very certain that there are many things of immutable 
and eternal truth in this covenant; which we reckon 
up in this order. 1st. The precepts of the covenant, 
excepting that probatory one, oblige all and every one 
to a perfect performance of duty, in what state soever 
they are. 2dly. Eternal life, promised by the cove¬ 
nant, can be obtained upon no other condition than that 
of perfect, and in every respect complete, obedience. 
3dly. No act of disobedience escapes the vengeance 
of God, and death is always the punishment of sin. 
But these maxims do not exclude a surety, who may 
come under engagements in man’s stead, to undergo 
the penalty and perform the condition. But we shall 
speak of this afterward, and now proceed to what has 
been proposed.” 

“ The law therefore remains as the rule of our duty, 
but abrogated as to its federal nature; nor can it be 
the condition, by the performance of which man may 
acquire a right to the reward. In this sense the apostle 
says, ‘ We are not under the law,’ Rom. vi, 14 ; namely, 
as prescribing the condition of life. There is, indeed, 
still an indissoluble connection between perfect right¬ 
eousness and eternal life, so that the last cannot be 
obtained without the first. But after that man, by 
falling from righteousness, had lost all his hope of the 
reward, God was at liberty either to punish the sinner, 
according to his demerit, or give him a surety to fulfil 
all righteousness in his stead.”* 

Next, I present the confession of faith of the West¬ 
minster divines, adopted by the General Assembly of 
the Presbyterian Church. 

* Economy of the Covenants, book i, chap, ix, sec. 1, 2, and 21, 
vol. i, pp. 124, 132. 


232 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“ Although true believers be not under the law as 
a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or con 
demnedyet is it of great use to them, as well as to 
others ; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the 
will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to 
walk accordingly ; 6 discovering also the sinful pollu¬ 
tions of their nature, hearts, and lives ; c so as, exa¬ 
mining themselves thereby, they may come to further 
conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin f 
together with a clearer sight of the need they have of 
Christ, and the perfection of his obedience/ It is 
likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their cor¬ 
ruptions, in that it forbids sin ’/ and the threatenings 
of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and 
what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, 
although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the 
law/ The promises of it, in like manner, show them 
God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings 
they may expect upon the performance thereof,* al¬ 
though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of 
works :* so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from 
evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and de- 
terreth from the other, is no evidence of his being un¬ 
der the law, and not under grace.”* 

The learned Archbishop Usher thus presents 

a Rom. vi, 14; Gal. ii, 16 ; ,iii, 13; iv, 4,5; Acts xiii, 39; Rom. viii,l. 
b Rom. vii, 12, 22, 25; Psa. cxix, 4-6; 1 Cor. vii, 19; Gal. v, 
14, 16, 13-23. c Rom. vii, 7 ; iii, 20. 

d James i, 23-25 ; Rom. vii, 9, 14, 24. 

e Gal. iii, 24; Rom. vii, 24; (see before, in the letter d; ver.’ 
25, in letter b ;) viii, 3, 4. 

/ James ii, 11; Psa. cxix, 101, 104, 128. 
g Ezra ix, 13, 14; Psa. lxxxix, 30-34. 

h (Lev. xxvi, to the 14th verse.) With 2 Cor. vi, 16 ; Eph. 
vi, 2, 3. Psa. xxxvii, 11; With Matt, v, 5; Psa. xix, 11. 
i Gal. ii, 16; Luke xvii, 10. 

* Rom. vi,12,14; 1 Pet. iii, 8-12; Psa. xxxiv, 12-16; Heb. xii r 28,29. 


♦ 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


233 


the two covenants. The covenant of works he pre¬ 
sents as follows:— 

“ Declare now out of that which hath been said, 
what the covenant of works is.—It is a conditional 
covenant between God and man, whereby on the one 
side God commandeth the perfection of godliness and 
righteousness, and promiseth that he will be our God, 
if we keep all his commandments; and on the other 
side, man bindeth himself to perform entire and per¬ 
fect obedience to God’s law, by that strength where 
with God hath endued him by the nature of his first 
creation. 

“ What was done in this covenant on God’s part ?—■ 
There was his law, backed with promises and threat- 
enings ; and unto them were added outward seals. 

“ What was the sum of this law?—Do this, and thou 
shalt live : if thou dost it not, thou shalt die the death. 

“ What is meant by, Do this ?—Keep all my com¬ 
mandments, in thought, word, and deed. 

“What is meant by life, promised to those that 
should keep all the commandments ?—The reward of 
blessedness and everlasting life. Levit. xviii, 5; Luke 
x, 28. 

“ What is meant by death threatened to those that 
should transgress?—In this world the curse of God, 
and death, with .manifold miseries both of body and 
soul: and (where this curse is not taken away) ever¬ 
lasting death both of body and soul in the world to 
come. Deut. xxvii, 26; xxix, 19, 20; and xxxii, 22. 
Levit. xxvi; Deut. xxviii.”* 

The covenant of grace he thus represents :— 

“ What then is the sum of the covenant of grace ?—■ 
That God will be our God, and give us life everlasting 
in Christ, if we receive him, being freely by his Father 
* Body of Divinity, pp. 110, 111. 


234 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


offered unto us. Jer. xxi, 33 ; Acts xvi, 30, 31; John 

i, 12. 

“ How doth this covenant differ from that of works ? 
—Much every way. For first, in many points the law 
may be conceived by reason : but the gospel in all 
points is far above the reach of man’s reason. Sec¬ 
ondly. The law commandeth to do good, and giveth no 
strength: but the gospel enableth us to do good, the 
Holy Ghost writing the law in our hearts, (Jer. xxxi, 
33,) and assuring us of the promise that revealeth this 
gift. Thirdly. The law promised life only; the gospel 
righteousness also. Fourthly. The law required per¬ 
fect obedience, the gospel the righteousness of faith. 
Rom. iii, 31. Fifthly. The law revealeth sin, rebuketh 
us for it, and leaveth us in it: but the gospel doth re¬ 
veal unto us the remission of sins, and freeth us from 
the punishment belonging thereunto. Sixthly. The 
law is the ministry of wrath, condemnation, and death : 
the gospel is the ministry of grace, justification, and 
life. Seventhly. The law was grounded on man’s own 
righteousness ; requiring of every man in his own per¬ 
son perfect obedience, (Deut. xxvii, 26,) and in default, 
for satisfaction, everlasting punishment; (Ezek. xviii, 
21, 22; Gal. iii, 10, 12;) but the gospel is grounded 
on the righteousness of Christ; admitting payment 
and performance by another , in behalf of so many as 
receive it. Gal. iii, 13, 14. And thus this covenant 
abolisheth not, but is the accomplishment and estab¬ 
lishment of the former. Rom. iii, 31, and x, 4. 

“ Wherein do they agree ?—They agree in this, that 
they be both of God, and declare one kind of righteous¬ 
ness, though they differ in offering it unto us. 

“ What is that one kind of righteousness ?—It is the 
perfeci love of God and of our neighbour. 

“What thing doth follow upon this?—That the se- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


235 


vere law pronounceth all the faithful righteous: for¬ 
asmuch as they have in Christ all that the law doth 
ask. 

“ But yet they remain transgressors of the law.— 
They are transgressors in themselves, and yet righteous 
in Christ; and in their inward man they love righteous¬ 
ness, and hate sin. 

“ What are we to consider in the covenant of grace f 
—The condition, first of the Mediator; and then of the 
rest of mankind. In the former consisteth the founda¬ 
tion of this covenant; the performance whereof de- 
pendeth upon Christ Jesus ; (Acts x, 43 ; Rom. i, 3, 4;) 
to the latter belongeth the application thereof for salva¬ 
tion unto all that will receive it. 2 Cor. v, 20; Matt, 
vi, 33.”* 

Now where is the great ground of quarrel between 
Mr. Wesley and his opponents, touching the law ? On 
both sides, all agree that we are not, in the gospel, put 
upon the terms of perfect conformity to the Adamic 
law, as the condition of salvation. That “true believers 
are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be 
thereby justified or condemned,” but that, as St. Paul 
says, “ A man is justified by faith, without the deeds 
of the law.” All admit that the law of perfect purity 
still remains, as an expression of the inflexible holiness 
of God, and as the great rule of duty binding all moral 
beings to a state of allegiance to their rightful Sove¬ 
reign. That its use is to expose the exceeding sinful¬ 
ness of sin, and “ the terrible vengeance which awaits 
the sinner;” but that it makes no provision for either 
pardon or sanctification. While the law brandishes 
over the sinner’s head the sword of justice, the gospel 
offers him salvation upon terms which do not infract 
its high and holy claims. St. Paul says, “ Christ is 
* Body of Divinity, pp. 140, 141. 


236 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP 


the end (re/lo^, perfection , completeness*) of the law 
for righteousness to every one that believeth,” Rom. 
x, 4; that is, the great purposes of the law are fully 
carried out and sustained by extending righteousness,— 
the grace of justification and sanctification, to the be¬ 
liever. 

Again St. Paul says, “ The law is our schoolmaster 
to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by 
faith: but after that faith is come, we are no longer 
under a schoolmaster.”! Gal. iii, 24, 25. 

Mr. Wesley, then, is sustained, in his strongest ex¬ 
pressions, by Luther, Calvin, the Westminster divines, 
and, I might add, by all the orthodox reformers, both 
Calvinists and Arminians; and, what is infinitely bet¬ 
ter, by the great apostle of the Gen'tiles, upon the sub¬ 
ject of the abolishment of the law, as a condition of 
life . 

* “ For Christ is the end of the law —Completement, or, as trans¬ 
lated by Erasmus, perfection of the law is tolerably well suited to 
this passage; yet, since the common reading is almost universally 
received, and does not ill agree with the context, I leave it to my 
readers to make their own choice. Every precept, every promise, 
every doctrine of,the law looks to Christ as the mark which ought to 
be kept constantly in view. All the judicial, ceremonial, ritual, and 
moral parts of the law are directed to the Messiah as their comple¬ 
tion.”— Calvin. See his Commentary on the place. 

t “ Schoolmaster —That is to say, a means and instrument to govern 
our souls and actions, fitting for the church’s childhood, with much 
rigour and servitude. That we might —Namely, that looking still 
upon Christ, the church might, even in those days, receive from him 
the gift of righteousness and life, and that at this present time the 
effect of free justification might show itself at full, by freeing us from 
the former labours and rigours of the law. No longer under —He 
means not here that the doctrine is abolished, but only the properties 
and qualities of it, whereby it appointeth reward and punishment with 
the uttermost rigour; forgiveth nothing, but requireth entire obe¬ 
dience, &c.” Diodati — Pious Annotations upon the Holy Bible. 
Quarto. London. 1648. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


237 


When we plead for a state of holiness which fully 
meets the conditions of the gospel , why must our 
opponents for ever meet us with the objection that the 
law is infinitely above the highest measure of our obe¬ 
dience ? And when we reply, “We are not under the 
law, but under grace,” just as St. Paul and all their 
own divines teach, why are we then to be charged with 
lowering the standard of holiness required by God’s 
holy law ? Is this legitimate reasoning ? I think net. 
I am persuaded the objection is founded in a mistaken 
issue, and that the reasoning which follows is conse¬ 
quently all fallacious. 

But, after all, it may be urged that there is no real 
difference between the original law and the law of love 
—that the requirement that we should love God with 
all our heart, soul, and strength, is equal to the original 
law of perfect purity. 

The difference between the original law of perfect 
purity and the law of love, as incorporated in the gos¬ 
pel, is this : One is an expression of the divine will 
concerning beings perfectly pure, in the full possession 
of all their original capabilities ; but the other is an 
expression of the divine will concerning fallen beings 
restored to a state of probation by the mediation of 
Christ. Each alike requires the exercise of all the 
capabilities of the subjects ; but the subjects being in 
different circumstances, and differing in the amount 
of their capabilities, from the necessity of the case, 
the conditions of life are varied. Allowing the same 
formulary to be employed in both cases, viz., “ Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all 
thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength,” 
the heart, &c., in one case, being in a different condi¬ 
tion from what it is in the other, does not in all respects 
imply the same thing. In both cases it implies the 


238 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


whole heart :—but the whole heart is less in some re¬ 
spects in one case than in the other. 

This, it may still be urged, amounts to the same 
thing, viz., a dishonouring of the law. For in this case 
the standard of character presented is lower than the 
law originally required, and just so far the law is not 
fulfilled—is not magnified and made honourable. 

It is admitted that the claims of the law cannot be 
said to have been met, in his own person , by the holiest 
man that has ever lived since the fall. And had this been 
required as the condition of salvation, who could have 
been saved ? But then, if the claims of the law are not 
met in us—if we are not by some means raised up to 
the standard of holiness which the law requires—is the 
law not dishonoured in every instance in which a sinner 
is saved from its curse ? Such would doubtless be the 
fact, were it not for the atonement of Christ. But 
Christ by his atonement has, so to speak, made amends 
to the law for the injury it receives by the pardon of 
offenders. “ Christ is the end [or perfection] of the 
law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” 
Rom. x, 4. 

We see the law, for the purpose of maintaining the 
moral order of God’s kingdom, inflicting death upon 
transgression. Now, unless God’s abhorrence of sin 
and the holiness of his government can be manifested 
to intelligent and moral beings as clearly and as fully 
by some other means, every individual sinner must in¬ 
fallibly die—there can be no hope of salvation but upon 
the destruction of the law. The death of Christ is 
represented in the Scriptures as meeting the case. 
It supervenes to rescue the law from disgrace—so to 
carry out its original objects, viz., a demonstration of 
God’s righteousness, and an exhibition of the evil of 
sin, that its highest honour is secured in the pardon 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


239' 


and salvation of the believer. As saith the apostle: 
“ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through 
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the 
remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance 
of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteous¬ 
ness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him 
which believeth in Jesus,” Rom. iii, 25, 26. 

It has been further most vehemently objected, 
“ that the more we sin and thereby debilitate our 
powers, the more circumscribed does the sphere of 
our duty become—or, in other words, that we are 
excusable for not meeting the requisitions of the law 
of God just in proportion as we advance in the career 
of rebellion against him. And if there is either truth 
or safety in this position, then the shortest road to en¬ 
tire sanctification is the highway of sin. We have only 
to persevere in sin until our powers become so ‘ weak’ 
that we have no further capability of obeying any part 
of the divine law, and then we are sanctified to the 
full extent of our obligations ; because our ‘ circum¬ 
stances ’ are such that we are under no obligation 
whatever.”* 

This objection has no force against our theory. Let 
us test it:—1. It must be conceded that sin is attended 
with a loss of moral power. And, 2. Until the sinner 
shall have exhausted the last moment of his probation, 
his salvation is possible. Consequently, 3. He is only 
required at any given point in his downward course to 
perform conditions for which God graciously gives 
liim the ability. For if, at any point of time, 
his powers fall short of the condition, and so his 
salvation is no longer practicable, then his pro¬ 
bation ceases, and the promises of the gospel are no 
longer applicable to him. But, 4. His responsibility 
* Dr. Snodgrass on Entire Sanctification, pp. 23, 24. 


240 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


in general does not diminish, but rather increases, with 
his loss of power. Until he repents, his guilt con¬ 
stantly accumulates, and one of its great aggravations 
is, that he is squandering away the precious talent 
committed to him—that he is with every sin weaken¬ 
ing the power of conscience and grieving the Spirit of 
God, and so disqualifying himself for the great ends 
of his being, and constantly approaching a reprobacy 
of mind which is a certain precursor of eternal death. 
5. At any point in the sinner’s life before his probation 
expires, on the conditions of repentance and faith, God 
will graciously pardon all his sins —not excepting their 
aggravations—his squandering away his moral power, 
or, in other words, his voluntary and unnecessary 
abuse, and consequent loss, of the grace bestowed 
upon him for his salvation. All—all this is forgiven 
freely. Well, when all these sins are graciously par- 
loned, can it be supposed that he is now held account- 
ble for the improvement of powers and privileges 
.vhich, in his former course of evil living, he had 
wholly squandered away, and cannot now recover? 
4n old inebriate comes to repentance. Does God re¬ 
quire of him now, with his broken constitution and 
enfeebled mental energies, just as much as would have 
oeen required if he had begun to serve him in the days 
of his youth, and had constantly accumulated moral 
power to hoary age? I mean, is he required, after 
having received pardon at the hand of God for all past 
sins, as a condition of continued gracious acceptance , 
o employ in the service of God undiminished and un 
njured powers of body and mind ? If so, he is put 
jpon terms altogether impracticable. Indeed, upon 
this principle no one can ever be saved; for no one 
oan do as much as he could have done if he had never 
sinned. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


24! 


Should it here be objected, that upon the principle 
that God will accept of what our enfeebled powers 
enable us to bestow, at any time, we have great en 
couragement to continue in sin: for the more we sin 
the less is required of us; we would answer, 1. A 
man’s salvation is not probable in proportion to the 
smallness of his powers. The man who had five ta¬ 
lents improved them, while the man who had but one 
hid it in the earth. 2. Sin constantly accumulates 
guilt, and increases the difficulty of repentance, and, 
of course, the doubtfulness of that repentance. 3. If 
the sinner comes to repentance, one of the bitterest 
ingredients in his cup of sorrow will be, that he has 
lost so much power to do good and glorify God, and 
that at best he must stumble along at a poor rate, with 
broken oones and diminished comforts. And 4. If he 
finally gets to heaven, he will then see that he has 
failed to secure an inconceivable amount of blessed¬ 
ness, by neglecting to make the best of his means. 
What encouragement is there here, then, to continue 
in sin ? I confess I see none. 

To make Dr. Snodgrass’s conclusion, that “the 
shortest road to entire sanctification is the highway of 
sin,” valid, he must assume that the sinner, when he 
shall have persevered in sin until his powers become 
so weak that he has no further capability of obeying 
any part of the divine law, is then, of course, to be 
pardoned for all his numerous and aggravated offences, 
and sanctified from his accumulated and crimson stains, 
without repentance and faith . And this he must find 
contained in our system, or he has no right to assume 
it. But the principle we deny and utterly detest; nor 
can it, by any process of legitimate reasoning, be shown 
to grow out of our theory, or to hold to it the least re¬ 
lationship. 


16 


242 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


LECTURE XII. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE—CONTINUED. 

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that be- 
lieveth.—Rom. x, 4. 

The doctrine maintained in the preceding lecture 
being, as I conceive, of vital importance to the true 
Scripture view of Christian perfection, I shall here 
proceed to its further discussion and elucidation. 

I deny the possibility of legal perfection. And by 
legal perfection I mean the perfect performance of all 
that the law requires. By the term law here, I mean 
the rule of duty which binds man to love and serve 
God to the full extent of his original capacity and means. 
This is what I call the moral law. 

Law, in general, is defined by Arminius, “ from its 
end, ‘ an ordinance of right reason for the common and 
particular good of all and of each of those, who are 
subordinate to it, enacted by him who has the care of 
the whole community, and, in it, that of each indi¬ 
vidual.’ Or, from its efficacy, ‘ an ordinance com¬ 
manding what must be done, and what omitted; it is 
enacted by him who possesses the right of requiring 
obedience, and it binds to obedience a creature who 
abounds in the use of reason and the exercise of liberty, 
by the sacred promise of a reward, and by the denun¬ 
ciation of a punishment.’ ” The m,oral law, this pro¬ 
found theologian defines, “ the perpetual and immuta¬ 
ble rule of living, the express image of the internal di¬ 
vine conception ; according to which, God, the great 
Lawgiver, judges it right and equitable that a rational 
creature should always, and in every place, order and 
direct the whole of his life.” 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


243 


Very similar are the expressions of Mr. Wesley upon 
this subject. He says:—“ It remains, that the law, 
eminently so termed, is no other than the moral law. 
Now this law is an incorruptible picture of the high 
and holy One that inhabiteth eternity. It is he, whom, 
in his essence, no man hath seen or can see, made 
visible to men and angels. It is the face of God un¬ 
veiled ; God manifested to his creatures as they are 
able to bear it; manifested to give, and not to destroy 
life,—that they may see God, and live. It is the heart 
of God disclosed to man. Yea, in some sense, we may 
apply to this law, what the apostle says of his Son, it 
is anavyaopa rrjg nac x a Q aKr7 lQ T1 K vnOg-aoeug 

avrs,—the streaming forth [or out-beaming] of his 
glory, the express image of his person .”— Sermons, vol. 
i, p. 309. 

In these statements our authors have reference to 
the great moral rule which governs all moral intelli¬ 
gences—the rule founded upon the perfections of God, 
and the relations of moral beings to himself. This 
rule is necessarily coexistent with moral relations— 
beginning with them, and never terminating while they 
remain. The different formularies which we have of 
this law embrace the same fundamental elements. 
Whether given to man in Paradise in the form of a 
simple prohibition, to the children of Israel from Mount 
Sinai in the Decalogue, or dispensed by our Saviour 
under the two heads of love to God and love to man, 
it is in its nature the same—implying nothing more 
nor less than supreme love. 

In discussing the subject of Christian perfection, the 
question naturally arises, what i S the standard by which 
it is to be estimated and determined ? Does Christian 
perfection cover the whole ground of the claims of 
God’s law? Is it the perfect performance of all that 


244 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the law which God gave to man required, when he 
came pure from the hand of his Maker? There is no 
doubt but this was the measure of Adamic perfection, 
or human perfection as originally limited and defined. 
But whether Christian perfection implies all this, is a 
question which it would seem is not yet settled to 
universal satisfaction. And to this question I propose 
to devote the present lecture. 

The position taken in the preceding lecture, that 
Christian perfection implies something less than per¬ 
fect obedience to the moral law , having been warmly 
controverted, seems to require a more extended dis¬ 
cussion. In the investigation of the subject in this 
place I intend not to enter into personal controversy, 
nor to give it a deeper controversial tinge than is abso¬ 
lutely necessary. 

The position I maintain is, that to fallen humanity , 
f hough renewed by grace , perfect obedience to the moral 
law is impracticable during the present probationary 
state. And, consequently, I hold that the Christian 
perfection attainable , does not imply perfect obedience 
to the moral law. 

Against this position two theories have been brought 
to bear, agreeing in some particulars and wholly op¬ 
posed in others. Both agree in maintaining the prac¬ 
ticability of perfect obedience to the moral law, and 
that perfect Christians render such obedience; but they 
differ as to what the moral law is: one maintaining 
that the Adamic and the moral law are distinct—the 
one having been annulled and the other remaining in 
force; while the other holds that these designations 
refer to one and the same law, which never has been, 
and never can be, annulled. The one makes perfect 
obedience to the law practicable by lowering its claims, 
and the other arrives at the same result by depressing 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


245 


the primeval state of man below the commonly re¬ 
ceived estimate. They differ in their premises, but 
agree in their conclusion. Their premises cannot 
both be right, but may both be wrong: the latter I 
suppose to be the fact, and will proceed to assign a few 
reasons for this opinion. 

To the theory first-named, that the original or 
Adamic law is separate and distinct from the moral 
law, and that it has been abrogated by the great Law¬ 
giver, I object for the following reasons : First , there 
is no Scripture authority for its support. I know 
St. Paul says, “We are delivered from the law;” 
“We are become dead to the law by the body of 
Christ;” and that “Christ is the end of the law for 
righteousness to every one that believeth.” But then 
in all this he means simply that “ we are dead to the 
law,” as a covenant of works—that it is no longer the 
condition of human acceptance. This is just what the 
scope of his argument requires. And that he could 
not mean to assert that the law was wholly abrogated, 
is evident from the fact that he at the same time re¬ 
cognizes its actual existence, and its great virtue and 
efficient operation.* 

In the first place there is no Biblical authority for the 
distinction, asserted in this theory, between the Adamic 
and the moral law; nor is there any evidence of the 
abrogation of the original law in any other sense 
than as a covenant of works, or the condition of 
salvation. And the want of this authority is fatal 
to the theory. If it were true that God had an¬ 
nulled his original law, and enacted one suited to the 
weakness of our fallen natures, we might expect to see 

* See Romans vii, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14. For an extended discus¬ 
sion of St. Paul’s doctrine of the law, see Methodist Quarterly, vol. 
vii, art. 7. 


246 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


it somewhere intimated in the writings of Christ and 
his apostles. Instead of this, our Lord explicitly tells us 
he “came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill.” And 
St. Paul says we do not “ make void the law through 
faith.” 

Secondly , this theory implies that God has given up 
his holy law to eternal dishonor :—having wholly ab¬ 
solved the family of man from all their obligations to 
that degree of holiness which the Adamic law required. 
Now if, when man lost his ability to render perfect 
obedience to the original law, God would annihilate 
that law, and give him another suited to his enfeebled 
powers, then, for the same reason which induced him 
to do so in one instance, he would in all cases and for 
ever abate the claims of his law in proportion as bis 
intelligent creatures should abuse and lose their power 
to render obedience. And upon this theory, perfect 
obedience to the requirements of God’s holy law would 
be practicable at any point of the sinner’s downward 
progress: and what objection then would lie against the 
Socinian hypothesis, that man is always able to raise 
himself to all the dignity of holiness which the law re¬ 
quires without aid from an atonement? If the broken 
law is annulled, no expedient to magnify and make it 
honorable could be demanded. Whatever other ob¬ 
jects could be answered by an atonement, it could 
have no relation to an abrogated law; and, conse¬ 
quently, the law which Christ came to “ magnify ” and 
“fulfil” is not the original law that was broken by 
Adam, and in him by all his posterity. That law is 
completely and for ever done away; and all idea of 
its being sustained by the death and righteousness of 
Christ is utterly out of the question. 

Another absurd result following from this theory is 
that when the sinner loses all his power to obey, then 


9 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 247 

all his obligations cease :—when he can do nothing , 
then nothing will be required. Who knows, then, but 
the devil and his angels, together with the lost sinners 
of Adam’s race, may fully meet the claims of God’s 
law ?—do all that is required of them ? And if so, may 
they not be restored to the divine favor, and be re¬ 
leased from the pains of perdition ? 

In the view of considerate minds, consequences so 
startling, if they are logically deduced from the theory 
here opposed, must render the theory itself wholly 
inadmissible. 

Thirdly , I object to the doctrine that the'Adamic 
law is repealed, and the moral law supersedes it, that 
it gives the moral law a comparatively modern origin. 
I have met with some who, by the moral law, merely 
“ mean the ten commandments.” Identifying the mo¬ 
ral law with the form of the Decalogue , of course, they 
must hold that God's moral law originated at Sinai, 
and consequently prior to Moses it had no existence. 

According to this theory we have a period of more 
than two thousand and five hundred years, during 
which there was no moral law in being. The Adamic 
law, it would seem, was abrogated immediately upon 
the apostasy; and though promises and prophecies 
were communicated from Heaven, with several posi¬ 
tive precepts, yet no moral law of universal obligation, 
and extending to all the actions of men, was enacted 
to supply its place until the days of Moses. If others, 
who hold the theory here opposed, should concede 
the existence of the moral law, prior to the exist¬ 
ence of the form given on Sinai, still they must main¬ 
tain that it was enacted subsequent to the fall, and con¬ 
sequently had no existence before that event. If this 
be so, it seems singular that we have no account in 
sacred story of that important transaction, I can- 


248 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


not believe, without clear Scripture warrant, that the 
moral law is an expedient to which the divine Ruler 
had recourse, after man’s apostasy from his original 
state of holiness. Whoever has a relish for such ab¬ 
surdities, I have not. 

Finally , I object to this doctrine that it is contrary 
to the Wesleyan standards. This objection of course 
is only of force with those who receive these standards. 
But as those who have assailed my positions upon this 
point, acknowledge the Wesleyan theologians as good 
authority, an appeal to them is a legitimate mode of 
discussing the subject. 

Mr. Wesley maintains that “the moral law” began 
with moral relations, and will remain for ever. I shall 
not quote all from this author that would be to the point; 
two or three clear passages will be quite sufficient. 
The first I take from the sermon on “The Origin, Na¬ 
ture, Properties, and Use of the Law.” Here he says:— 
“ I shall first endeavor to show the original of the 
moral law , often called ‘ the law,’ by way of eminence. 
Now this is not, as some may have possibly imagined, 
of so late an institution as the time of Moses. Noah 
declared it to men long before that time, and Enoch 
before him. But we may trace its original higher still, 
even beyond the foundation of the world, to that period, 
unknown indeed to men, but doubtless enrolled in the 
annals of eternity, when ‘ the morning stars [first] sang 
together,’ being newly called into existence.”— Ser¬ 
mons, vol. i, p. 307. 

The next quotation from Mr. Wesley is taken from 
his fifth discourse “Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the 
Mount,” and is as follows :— 

“ But the moral law contained in the ten command¬ 
ments, and enforced by the prophets, he did not take 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


249 


away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke 
any part of this. This is a law which never can be 
broken, which ‘ stands fast as the faithful witness in 
heaven.’ The moral stands on an entirely different 
foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law, which 
was only designed for a temporary restraint upon a 
disobedient and stiff-necked people; whereas this was 
from the beginning of the world, being 1 written not on 
tables of stone ,’ but on the hearts of all the children of 
men , when they came out of the hands of the Creator. 
And, however the letters once wrote by the finger of God 
are now in a great measure defaced by sin, yet can 
they not wholly be blotted out, while we have any con¬ 
sciousness of good and evil. Every part of this law 
must remain in force upon all mankind , and in all 
ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any 
other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature 
of God , and the nature of man, and their unchangea¬ 
ble relation to each other” — Ibid., pp. 221, 222. 

I shall not quote Mr. Fletcher at length upon the 
subject. Just enough from him to embrace the great 
principle I contend for, is all I shall attempt to adduce. 
He says :—“ With respect to the Christless law of par¬ 
adisiacal obedience, we entirely disclaim sinless perfec¬ 
tion ; and, improperly speaking, we say with Luther, 
‘ In every good work the just man sinneth,’ that is, he 
more or less transgresses the paradisiacal law of inno¬ 
cence,” &c.— Works, vol. ii, pp. 493, 561. 

If “ the paradisiacal law of innocence” may be trans¬ 
gressed, it is not abrogated; for violating a law that is 
abrogated or repealed, in no sense makes a man a 
sinner. 

Both in my doctrinal views, and in my interpreta¬ 
tion of the doctrinal views of Messrs. Wesley and 


250 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Fletcher, I am fully sustained by the late Dr. Fisk. Ir 
his defense of the action of the New-England Confer¬ 
ence in the case of Joshua Randall, before the General 
Conference of 1828, he says :— 

“Mr. Fletcher makes a distinction between these 
two laws, [namely, the Adamic law of innocency, or 
law of works, and the Mediator’s law, law of liberty, 
or of faith ;] but in this distinction he evidently uses 
law, as the Scriptures sometimes do, in the sense of 
covenant, and means to say that the conditions of life 
in the two are altogether distinct and different. A cove¬ 
nant is a stipulation entered into, by which one party 
agrees to confer certain favors upon the other, on the 
ground of the performance of certain prescribed condi¬ 
tions ; whereas law, properly so called, is a rule of life, 
dictated by a sovereign and enforced by suitable sanc¬ 
tions. Now, so far as the Adamic law had in it the 
nature of a covenant, so far it differs from the gospel 
covenant, since the two covenants prescribe very dif¬ 
ferent terms as the conditions of life; and as a cove¬ 
nant , the Adamic law was wholly done away by Christ. 
But so far as that law was a rule of life, and a standard 
of holiness, it was identically the same law that has 
always existed in each and all the dispensations of God 
to man. To suppose anything else is to suppose the 
immutable God will change; and that, if he has low¬ 
ered down and altered the requirements of the first law, 
which, of course, required nothing more than holiness, 
the requisitions of the second and more relaxed law 
must require something less than holiness. But this 
lowering down of the standard of holiness is altogether 
different from what we have conceived to be the office 
of the gospel covenant. ... If the forgoing distinction 
between law, properly so called, and covenant, had been 
observed, Mr. Fletcher would not have been misunder- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


251 


stood. . . . The whole of this difficulty seems to have 
grown out of a misunderstanding of an equivocal term; 
a plain distinction has been overlooked, by which a 
new and dangerous doctrine has sprung up in the 
church, founded on another distinction without a dif¬ 
ference. 

“ Mr. Wesley, it must be acknowledged, used pe¬ 
culiar precision and distinctness in his definitions and 
arguments, and he evidently had the same understand¬ 
ing of the unity and unchangeable character of the di¬ 
vine law as Mr. Fletcher had. See his sermon on the 
law, in which he clearly teaches that this law has been 
invariably and identically the same, and must be so of 
necessity under all dispensations.”— Chr. Adv. SfJour. 

The learned Dr. Adam Clarke says :—“ This law, 
as it proceeded from the immaculate nature of God, was 
always the same. It was the law given to our first 
parents—it was suited to the nature of man, who was 
created in the image of God : there was nothing in it 
too hard for him ; he was as the commandment—holy, 
just, and good : and it would be shockingly absurd to 
suppose, that when man, through his own fault, sinned 
against his God, and fell from his perfection, that God 
must then bring down His law to a level with his 
sinful imperfection, that he might not by transgression 
incur further penalty! The thought, seriously indulged, 
is blasphemy. A law, thus framed, could be no expres¬ 
sion of the divine mind—could not have his sanction, 
and could be no rule of moral action.”—Sermon : Life, 
the Gift of the Gospel, fyc. 

In proof that Mr. Wesley held to the abolishment 
of the Adamic law, a passage is quoted which I have 
presented and remarked upon somewhat at length in 
the preceding lecture. In that passage the author 
says:—“ Christ is the end of the Adamic, as well as 


252 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the Mosaic, law. By his death he hath put an end to 
both ; he hath abolished both the one and the other, 
with regard to man; and the obligation to observe either 
is vanished away. Nor is any man living bound to 
observe the Adamic, more than the Mosaic, law. (I 
mean it is not the condition either of present or future 
salvation.) In the room of this, Christ hath established 
another, namely, the law of faith.” 

Now it must be admitted that, without the parenthe¬ 
sis, this passage would contain as explicit a declaration 
of the abrogation of the Adamic law as the English 
language could be made to express. But, with the pa¬ 
renthesis, the author’s meaning is fully qualified, and 
the language only implies the abrogation or abolish¬ 
ment of the Adamic law in one particular and specific 
sense; that is, “ as a condition of present or future 
salvation.” In one instance, I hope in no more, the 
qualifying parenthesis has been so construed that it 
makes Mr. Wesley say,—The Adamic law is wholly 
abolished in all respects ; and then add a qualifying 
parenthesis, in which he says:—I mean it is abolished 
in one particular respect, namely, “ as a condition 
of salvation.” Such a construction would make this 
acute logician forget that the major includes the minor, 
and so talk absolute nonsense. Who was in danger 
of supposing that an abolished law could be regarded 
as “the condition” of anything? Whence, then, the 
need of this unmeaning parenthesis ? If the law in 
question was wholly abolished, that it could not be 
“ the condition of present or future salvation,” would 
be a mere truism, which an author of the skill and judg¬ 
ment of John Wesley, could never so formally introduce 
to say nothing, and expose himself to ridicule. All 
I have seen in defense of the construction here opposed, 
but confirms me in the opinion that it is utterly without 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


253 


reason. I am aware it is alleged, that it makes Mr. 
Wesley contradict in the notorious parenthesis what 
he explicitly asserts in the connection. This is strange 
—passing strange ! An author may qualify a pro¬ 
position by inserting a limiting clause, without con¬ 
tradicting himself. None will doubt this. It may 
be said that the language of the passage in ques¬ 
tion is somewhat peculiar;—such, indeed, as is not 
usual for Mr. Wesley: but that there is the least chance 
for a doubt as to the sense, and the real design of the 
qualifying parenthesis, I am n ( ot able to perceive. In¬ 
deed, the question whether Mr. Wesley intended, 
in this famous passage, to assert that the Adamic 
law is abolished simply “ as a condition of salvation,” 
and no further, cannot be rationally considered as de¬ 
batable. If so, the passage as a whole really confirms 
my views. For it goes to show most conclusively that 
Mr. Wesley wished especially to guard his readers 
against the idea that the “Adamic law” or the “ moral 
law,” “which was originally given to angels in heaven 
and man in Paradise,” was in every sense “abolished.” 

For these reasons I reject the position that the law 
given to Adam is set aside, and that the moral law was 
first enacted at some period subsequent to the fall. 

The other method of making it possible for, at least 
sanctified Christians, perfectly to keep the law of God, 
is by depressing the primitive state of man below the 
true standard. Assuming that man originally was 
an imperfect being, it is presumed that Christians 
may reach even a higher degree of moral excel¬ 
lence than that which Adam and Eve enjoyed 
when they came from the hand of God; and, conse¬ 
quently, Adamic, and indeed super- Adamic, perfection 
is attainable by all Christians. In this state the claims 
of the original law would be fully met. For it is pre- 


254 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


sumed that the law did not originally require of man 
more than he was able to perform, and certainly when 
a Christian reaches a higher state of perfection than 
that which was possessed in primeval innocence, he 
can at least meet the claims of law suited to that state. 
As a fair representation of the class of divines who 
take this low view of the primitive state of man, I will 
refer to Dr. Knapp, a conservative German theologian. 
He says :—“ The knowledge of Adam, then, cannot be 
compared with that of any advanced and mature race 
of men. The understanding of man, also, in his pri¬ 
mitive state, though indeed sufficient for the situation 
in which he was placed, was still very small, as his 
actual knowledge was very limited. But the more 
feeble and imperfect these are, the more imperfect, 
necessarily, must be that virtue which depends upon 
them. There is a great difference between the inno¬ 
cence of childhood, and the virtue which is grounded 
upon the more perfect and mature knowledge and ex¬ 
perience of a riper and more advanced age. If our first 
parents had possessed .so preponderating a bias to good 
as many have supposed, it is hard to see how they could 
have been so easily seduced. We behold them yield¬ 
ing to temptations which would have in vain assailed 
many of those among their descendants, in whom, ac¬ 
cording to the language of Scripture, the image of God 
is renewed.”— Christian Theology , sec. liv. 

It will be-quite sufficient to say that this theory is 
wholly unsupported by Holy Scripture. Indeed, it 
is not only mere assumption resting upon no legiti¬ 
mate evidence whatever, but seems clearly contrary to 
the teachings of inspiration. It makes man originally 
to have been not only mentally but morally imperfect. 
His “knowledge” was “very limited,” “feeble, ana 
imperfect,” and his “virtue” “necessarily imperfect’ 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


255 


without .“ a preponderating bias to good,” “ yielding to 
temptations which would have in vain assailed many 
of those among his descendants, in whom, according 
to the language of Scripture, the image of God is re¬ 
newed.” And with all this was man “ very good ?” 
Was he made “upright,” and yet so imperfect in know¬ 
ledge, and so feeble in his tendencies to virtue and ho¬ 
liness ? Such philosophizing is utterly unworthy of a 
sound, evangelical divine. 

It is maintained by theologians who class with 
Knapp, not only that man originally was physically and 
intellectually imperfect, and without “ so preponderat¬ 
ing a bias to good as many have supposed,” but that 
his temptations were such as caused him “ to feel, in 
connection with them, some excitement of desire 
that this “excitement of desire” is necessary to tempt¬ 
ation, and constituted an element in the temptations 
of our Lord.* There was in him “an inward excite¬ 
ment of desire ” toward the forbidden object! Here then 
is a German speculation brought to complete maturity 
Christ desiring to turn the stones into bread—to cast 
himself down from the battlement of the temple, and 
thus to tempt God—and to fall down and worship the 
devil! Could the madness of this species of philoso¬ 
phizing possibly be rendered more apparent ? 

One grand difficulty in the way of this theory is, 
that it makes the fall a kind of necessary consequence 
of the constitution of things ordered by the Creator. 
Man was so imperfect and feeble a being, in his physi¬ 
cal and intellectual nature, that he was scarcely adequate 
to the severe test to which he was subjected. Being 
encompassed by infirmities—assailed by solicitations 
from without, and inclinations from within—he was over¬ 
come, and fell by a kind of fatality. His understanding 
* So teaches Dr. Ulman of the University of Heidelburgh. 


256 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


and virtue were not adequate to the trial he was called 
to endure. He was hardly made, as Milton says, 
“ sufficient to have stood.” These are the impressions 
which the notions in question have made upon my mind ; 
whether they are just, or not, I leave for others to 
judge. And, under these impressions, I cannot but think 
that, according to this theory, Adam is rather to be 
pitied than blamed. His fall seems to have been a 
part of the divine arrangement, and naturally, if not ne¬ 
cessarily, to have resulted from the imperfections of his 
nature. 

This whole view of the primeval condition of man 
appears to me to be unscriptural, and dishonorable to 
God. If it be true, man originally was but moderately 
good; if he could be considered so in any proper 
sense. In what sense was he made “ in the im¬ 
age,” and “ after the likeness, of God,” if his physi¬ 
cal, mental, and moral constitution, was of so low 
an order as the philosophy under consideration as¬ 
serts ? The Scripture account at least implies that 
his physical constitution was every way, and in all re¬ 
spects, adapted to the ends for which it was designed ; 
his intellectual faculties were perfectly suited to the 
sphere of their appropriate action.; and his moral powers 
and susceptibilities in a condition of uprightness, vigor, 
and activity, suited to the divine purpose in their con 
struction. The whole man must have been in entire 
harmony with the divine will. The machine, so to 
speak, must have operated harmoniously, working out 
its designed results, until sin disturbed the harmony of 
its movements by deranging, weakening, and perverting 
its constituent parts. These views may be thought 
as “visionary” as those of Mr. Wesley have been pro¬ 
nounced by a certain author. To show that neither 
Mr. Wesley, nor the writer, is so far from the mark 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


257 


in which sober minds agree, as has been supposed, 
the views of two of the most learned and eloquent di¬ 
vines of the seventeenth century are here presented. 

Dr. Bates says : “ Man was conformed to God in holi¬ 
ness. This appears from the expressions of the apostle 
concerning the sanctification of corrupt man, which he 
sets forth by the renewing of him in knowledge , right¬ 
eousness, and holiness; after the image of the Creator. 
The renovation of things is the restoration of them to 
their primitive state, and is more or less perfect, by its 
proportion to, or distance from, the original. Holi¬ 
ness and righteousness are the comprehensive sum of 
the moral law, which not only represents the will, but 
the nature of God in his supreme excellency, and in 
conformity to it the divine likeness eminently appeared. 
Adam was created with the perfection of grace; the 
progress of the most excellent saints is incomparably 
short of his beginning; by this we may, in part, con¬ 
jecture at the beauty of holiness in him, of which one 
faint ray, appearing in renewed persons, is so amiable. 
His primitive beauty is expressed in Scripture by recti¬ 
tude : God made man upright. There was a univer¬ 
sal, entire rectitude , in his faculties, disposing them for 
their proper operations. 

“ The understanding was enriched with knowledge. 
Nature was unveiled to Adam ; he entered into its 
sanctuary, and discovered its mysterious operations. 
When the creatures came to pay their homage to him, 
whatsoever he called them, that was the name thereof. 
Gen. ii, 19 . And their name expressed their nature. 
His knowledge reached through the whole compass of 
the creation, from the sun, the glorious vessel of light, 
to the glowworm that shines in the hedge. And this 
knowledge was not acquired by study ; it was not the 
fruit of anxious inquiry ; but as the illumination of the 


258 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


air is in an instant, by the light of the morning, so his 
understanding was enlightened by a pure beam from 
the Father of lights.”— Harmony of the Divine Attri¬ 
butes , chap. i. 

Dr. South says: “ He [Adam] came into the world 
a philosopher: which sufficiently appeared by his writ¬ 
ing the nature of things upon their names ; he could re¬ 
ceive the essences of things in themselves, and read 
forms without the comment of their respective proper¬ 
ties ; he could see consequences yet dormant in their 
principles, and effects yet unborn, and in the womb of 
their causes; his understanding could almost pierce 
into future contingents ; his conjecture improving even 
to prophecy, or the certainties of prediction: till his 
fall, it was ignorant of nothing but sin, or at least it 
rested on the notion, without the smart, of the experi¬ 
ment. Could any difficulty have been proposed, the 
resolution would have been as early as the proposal; 
it could not have had time to settle into doubt. Like 
a better Archimedes, the issue of all his inquiries was, 
a eureka , the offspring of his brain, without the sweat 
of his brow. Study was not then a duty, night watch¬ 
ings were needless ; the light of reason wanted not the 
assistance of a candle. This is the doom of fallen 
man, to labor in the fire ; to seek truth in prof undo; to 
exhaust his time and impair his health, and perhaps to 
spin out his days and himself into one pitiful, contro¬ 
verted conclusion. There was then no poring; no strug¬ 
gling with memory ; no straining for invention : his 
faculties were quick and expedite; they answered 
without knocking; they were ready upon the first 
summons ; there was freedom and firmness in all their 
operations. I confess it is as difficult for us, who date 
our ignorance from our first being, and were still bred 
up with the infirmities about us with which we were 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


259 


born, to raisfe our thoughts and imaginations to those 
intellectual perfections that attended our nature in the 
time of innocence, as it is for a peasant, bred up in the 
obscurities of a cottage, to fancy in his mind the un¬ 
seen pleasures of a court. But by rating positions by 
their privations, and other arts of reason by which dis¬ 
course supplies the want of the report of sense, we 
may collect the excellency of the understanding then 
by the glorious remainder of it now, and guess at the 
stateliness of the building by the magnificence of its 
ruins.” 

In relation to “ the rules of action, and the seeds of 
morality,” this author says : “ It was the privilege ot 
Adam, innocent, to have these notions also firm and 
untainted ; to carry his monitor in his bosom, his law 
in his heart; and to have such a conscience as might 
be its own casuist: and certainly those actions must 
needs be regular, where there is an identity between 
the rule and the faculty. His own mind taught him a due 
dependence upon God, and chalked out to him the just 
proportions and measure of behaviour to his fellow- 
creatures. He had no catechism but the creation ; 
needed no study but reflection; read no book but the 
volume of the world, and that too, not for rules to 
work by, but for the objects to work upon. Reason 
was his tutor, and first principles his magna moralia. 
The decalogue of Moses was but a transcript, not an 
original. All the laws of nations, and wise decrees 
of states, the statutes of Solon, and the twelve tables, 
were but a paraphrase upon this standing rectitude of 
nature, this fruitful principle of justice, that was reacfy 
to run out, and enlarge itself into suitable demonstra¬ 
tions, upon all emergent objects and occasions. Jus¬ 
tice was then neither blind to discern, nor lame to exe¬ 
cute. It was not subject to be imposed upon by a de- 


260 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


luded fancy, nor yet to be bribed by a glossing appe¬ 
tite, for a utile or jucundum to turn the balance to a 
false or a dishonest sentence. In all its directions of 
the inferior faculties, it conveyed its suggestions with 
clearness, and enjoined them with power; it had the 
passions in perfect subjection ; and though its com¬ 
mand over them was but suasive and political, yet it 
had the force of absolute and despotical. It was not 
then, as it is now, where the conscience has only 
power to disapprove, and to protest against the exor¬ 
bitances of the passions ; and rather to wish, than, 
make, them otherwise. The voice of conscience, then, 
was not, this should, or this should not, be done ; but, 
this must, this shall, be done. It spake like a legisla¬ 
tor ; the thing spoken was a law, and the manner of 
speaking it, a new obligation.”— Sermon: Creation of 
Man in the Image of God. 

If these views are not wholly erroneous, the 
scheme for lowering the standard of holiness 
required in the law, which would attain its ob¬ 
ject by lowering the primeval character of man, is 
equally indefensible with that which abrogates the 
Adamic law. Indeed both theories are wholly inad¬ 
missible. 

Having now found the philosophy of these scheme? 
utterly baseless, let us next proceed to examine 
what is alledged in proof of the principle in which 
they agree; namely, the practicability of perfect 
obedience to the law. And, in the first, place, let us at¬ 
tend to the Scripture proof which is adduced. 

St. Paul says, God sent his own Son “ that the right¬ 
eousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk 
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. viii, 4. 
Again : “ He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 
Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law ” Rom. xiii. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


261 


8, 10. “ Do we then make void the law through faith ? 

God forbid ! yea, we establish the law.” Rom. iii, 31. 

These are the strongest passages which are brought 
directly from the Scriptures, to prove the position 
here opposed; and it must be conceded that they 
clearly prove that a practical fulfilling of the law, in 
some sense, is both obligatory and possible. The 
question has never been raised in the church, except 
by rank Antimonians, whether men are bound to keep 
the commandments of God; or, which is the same 
thing, to be governed by the moral law. Nor has the 
practicability of this duty ever been denied by any others, 
except, perhaps, the old school Calvinists. But the 
question at issue is, whether the fulfilling of the law, 
which is both obligatory and attainable , amounts to 
perfect obedience. Here the Wesleyan divines pause : 
and I have, as yet, found no evidence from the Bible 
which proves the affirmative of this question. The above 
passages say nothing about the practicability of a perfect 
fulfilment of the law ; nor are there any to be found 
which assert this in relation to fallen men. This whole 
'controversy turns upon the word perfect; the absence of 
which from any authorities brought, either from the Bi¬ 
ble or our standard writers, renders them wholly inap¬ 
plicable and inconclusive. 

The passage which takes the lead in the catalogue 
(Rom. viii, 4) deserves more particular consideration ; 
as, owing to its peculiar phraseology, it is relied upon 
with rather more confidence perhaps than any other 
passage. The passage, with its connections, is as fol¬ 
lows :— 

“ 1. There is therefore now no condemnation to 
them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2. For the law of the 
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath, made me free from 


262 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the law of sin and death. 3. For what the law could 
not do, in that it was weak thrpugh the flesh, God 
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and 
for sin, condemned sin in the flesh : 4. That the right¬ 
eousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk 
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. viii. 

Here is a strong contrast drawn between the weak¬ 
ness and inefficacy of the law for the purposes of sanc¬ 
tification, and the strength and efficiency of the gospel 
system. 

1. “ There is no condemnation to them which are in 
Christ Jesus”—those who are “married” or united to 
Christ by faith are justified. The law, as we have 
seen, cannot justify, but the gospel can. 

2. “For the law of the Spirit of life”—the gospel 
—“ hath made me free from the law of sin and death” 
—hath taken me from under the power and bondage 
of the law, which, as it gives the sinner no relief, but 
leaves him under the power of sin, and condemns him 
to death on account of it, is called “the law of sin and 
death” 

3. “ For what the law could not do”—toward justi¬ 
fying and sanctifying the sinner—“ in that it was weak 
through the flesh, God” hath done—“ sending his own 
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for”—a sacri¬ 
fice for—“ sin, condemned sin in the flesh :” showing 
its evil, and* providing for its* destruction—“ that the 
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who 
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Through 
the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, made known by 
the gospel, God has achieved the complete emancipa¬ 
tion, from the condemnation and the power of sin, of 
all those who so believe and receive the atonement as 
to bring forth the fruits of holiness—a thing which the 
law, in its weakness, “could not do ” 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


263 


it is a matter of some importance to determine in 
what sense “ the righteousness of the law” is “ fulfilled 
in us who walk,” &c. There are two classes of views 
upon this point, between which commentators are di¬ 
vided. One class refers the fulfilment of the right¬ 
eousness of the law to Christ—condemning sin in the 
flesh ; and the other, to the practical obedience of the 
justified. 

Those who take the former of these views, do not 
agree as to what it is that fulfils the righteousness of 
the law. Those Calvinistic commentators who hold 
the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, 
maintain that it is Christ’s active righteousness. The 
note of the Westminister divines is a fair sample of 
the views of this class : “ Righteousness of the law — 
the very substance of the law of God might be ful¬ 
filled, or that same righteousness which the law re- 
quireth, that we may be found just before God. For 
if, with our justification, there be joined that active 
obedience of Christ which is imputed to us, we are 
just before God according to that perfect form which 
the law requireth.”— Assembly*s Annotations. With 
this construction, Theodore Beza and Pool perfectly 
harmonize. 

Calvin, in his note upon the passage, leaves out the 
notion of Christ's active righteousness; or, at least, 
does not express that idea. He says : “ Commentators, 
who from this passage understand believers renewed 
by the Spirit of Christ to fulfil the law, give a sense 
entirely different from that of Paul; for they, during 
their sojourning in the world, never make so great pro¬ 
gress, that the righteousness of the law is complete and 
entire in the regenerate. He must, therefore, neces¬ 
sarily refer this to the pardon of our sins ; for when 
the righteousness of Christ is received and transferred 


264 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


to us, the law is so satisfied, that we are considered 
just.”— Com. in loc. With this construction, Dr. 
Hodge substantially agrees : “ That the demands of the 
law might be fulfilled in us,” according to him, means, 
“ that we might be freed from its demands, that is, be 
justified.”— Com. in loc. 

But those who refer the fulfilment of the righteous¬ 
ness of the law to the practical obedience of those 
“ who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” 
suppose a qualified fulfilment of the righteousness of 
the law to be intended ; such as is implied in loving 
God with all the heart—the same sense in which 
“ love is the fulfilling of the law.” Among these we 
rank many of the Arminian commentators, and some 
of the Calvinistic. But several of these—such as 
Locke, Macknight, Benson,* Turner, Pyle, and others 
—take special care to guard against the supposition 

* The following is Mr. Benson’s note upon the passage, embracing 
the whole of Dr. Macknight’s. 

“ ‘ Might be fulfilled in us ’—Who are guided in our intentions and 
affections, words and actions, not by our animal appetites and pas¬ 
sions, or by corrupt nature, but by the word and Spirit of God Love 
to God and man is the principal thing enjoined in the moral law, as it 
is accounted by God the fulfilling of that law. Ch. xiii, 10 ; Gal. v, 
14; James ii, 8. It must be observed, however, that the righteous¬ 
ness of the law to be fulfilled in us, through the condemnation of sin 
in the flesh, and through our not walking according to the flesh, is not 
'perfect obedience to the moral law , or any law whatever , except that of 
faith and love ; for that is not attainable in the present life : but it is 
such a degree of faith and holiness as believers may attain through 
the influence of the Spirit. And being the righteousness required in 
the gracious new covenant, made with mankind after the fall, and 
fully published in the gospel, that covenant, and the gospel in which 
it is published, are fitly called the law of faith, Rom, iii, 27 ; and the 
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, ch. viii. 2 ; and the law ol 
Christ, Gal, vi. 2 ; and the law of liberty, James i, 25 ; and the law 
foretold to go forth out of Zion, Isa. ii, 3; and the law for which the 
isles, or the Gentiles, were to wait, Isa. xlii, 4 ” 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


265 


that a perfect satisfaction of the claims of the law is to- 
be understood; asserting that only the degree of obe¬ 
dience which a fallen being in a sanctified state is ablie 
to render, and which God, through Christ, will gra>- 
ciously condescend to accept, instead of such perfect 
righteousness as the law requires, is intended. This; 
is a safe construction, and there seems some reason 
for it; but it has its difficulties : ducatapa rw voyov , 
the righteousness of the law , in the full and proper 
sense, not limited or defined by the connections, or the 
scope of the passage, must imply a perfect righteous¬ 
ness. Nothing less than this could possibly meet the- 
claims of the law, and no one who has ever sinned can 
attain such righteousness. For the law requires sin¬ 
less perfection—making no allowance for the smallest 
departure from its high and holy requirements, and ex¬ 
tending no mercy to past failures. Who, then, can ever, 
in himself and by his own works, practically meet the 
claims of God’s holy law ? “ The righteousness ©>f the 

law” not only requires that we should not sin in-future, 
but that we should never have sinned in daysprtst —it- 
must imply Adamic perfection, and nothing less^ But 
it may be said that the atonement of Christ meets the 
demands of the law, so far as the past is concerned, 
pardoning our trespasses and washing away our stems : 
and it is only for the future—subsequent to Aur sancti¬ 
fication—that we are expected to fulfil the righteous¬ 
ness of the law. To this it may be answered, that it 
does not agree with the position maintained. That po¬ 
sition is, that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled by 
us, —as they render ev rjyiv ,—who walk, &c.p making, 
the fulfilment of the righteousness of the law personal 
—the result of our own works. If the righteousness 
of the law is in a proper sense fulfilled by us y there is 
nothing left to be done by Christ. The difficulty of 


266 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


this interpretation is, that, while it makes the atone¬ 
ment of Christ in some unexplained, and, to us, incon¬ 
ceivable, way, to render it possible that we should ful¬ 
fil the righteousness of the law, it gives the atonement 
no part in the work of fulfilling that righteousness. 
Now, we learn from the Scriptures that Christ 
“ magnified the law and made it honorable,” and 
“ brought in everlasting righteousnessthat he is 
“the Lord our righteousness;” that he is “our wis¬ 
dom, righteousness , sanctification, and redemption.” 
But that the righteousness of the law can, in any 
proper sense, be fulfilled by a fallen being, is clearly 
untrue. 

We have no doubt that obedience to the require¬ 
ments of the gospel, and a perfect fulfillment of its 
conditions, are practicable. But then the question is, 
whether this is the meaning of the text under consider¬ 
ation. Nor have we any doubt that the righteous¬ 
ness of the law is fulfilled, or completely vindicated, 
in the final salvation of the believer; but then we 
suppose this is done by the divine atonement, and not 
by his perfect obedience to its requirements. 

But, as the construction which I have given to this 
famous passage has been by some considered as of 
Antinomian tendency, I must not yet dismiss it. I 
will next give, at length, the construction of the 
learned James Arminius, who, I hope, will not be sus¬ 
pected of Antinomianism. After a construction of the 
preceding verses, he proceeds :—“ From these obser¬ 
vations is deduced the meaning of the fourth verse, 
plainly agreeing with those which preceded. It is 
this: after it had come to pass, that sin was con¬ 
demned in the flesh of the Son of God, the right, or 
authority of the law, was completed and consummated 
in those who are in Christ Jesus, and who walk after 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


267 


the Spirit; so that they are no longer under the guid¬ 
ance and government of the law, but under the guid¬ 
ance of Him who has delivered us from sin, and who 
has claimed us for his own people. 

“ This is plainly expressed by the apostle, in the 
fourth verse of the preceding chapter, in these words : 
‘Ye are become dead to the law in the body of Christ, 
that ye should be married to another, even to Him 
who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth 
fruit unto God.’ For these phrases agree with each 
other : ‘Ye are become dead to the law,’ ‘ and the right 
and authority of the law are fulfilled, or completed, in 
you.’ And, ‘in the body of Christ ye are become 
dead to the law,’ is the same as, ‘ sin was condemned 
in the flesh of Christ, that the right or authority of the 
law might be fulfilled in us.’ But when the right of 
the law is completed and consummated by the con¬ 
demnation of sin, which was effected in the flesh of 
Christ, we belong, or are married, to another; that is, 
the right is transferred from the law to Christ, that we 
may be no longer under the law, but under Christ, 
and may live under grace, and the guidance of his 
Spirit. 

“ For those words, ‘ that the right or authority of the 
law might be fulfilled in us,’ must not be understood 
as if, when sin had been condemned in the flesh of 
Christ, the right or authority of the law was still to be 
completed; but that after the condemnation of sin in 
the flesh of Christ, the right of the law was actually 
fulfilled. Several forms of speech, similar to this, are 
used in this manner in the Scriptures. For instance : 
‘ All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken of the Lord by the prophet.’ Matt, i, 22. See 
also, chap, ii, 23 ; iv, 3, 16; viii, 16, 17 ; xii, 17 ; xiii, 
35 ; xxvi, 56. In all these examples, the phrase 


268 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


4 that it might be fulfilled,’ evidently means that the 
prediction was fulfilled by those acts which are men¬ 
tioned in the several passages. This is also signified 
by a phrase different from the preceding, in Matt, 
xxvii, 9 : ‘ Then was fulfilled that which was spoken 
by Jeremy the prophet.’ It is lawful also to change 
the mode of speech in this verse (Rom. viii, 4) into 
another, exactly of the same import: ‘ Then was ful¬ 
filled the right or the authority of the law in us.’ In ad¬ 
dition to these, consult Matt, xxvii, 35 ; Luke xxi, 22 ; 
John xiii, 18; xvii, 12; xviii, 9; and innumerable 
other passages. 

“ From this explication, it is apparent that this por¬ 
tion of holy writ (Rom. viii, 1-4) is plain and perspic¬ 
uous, though, without this interpretation, it is encom¬ 
passed with much obscurity, as almost all interpreters 
have confessed, while they have labored hard to ex¬ 
plain it. 

** We will now, by permission, compress all these 
remarks into a small compass, and briefly recapitulate 
them ; what I have advanced will then become far 
more evident. 

“ Since, therefore, we have already seen, that man 
under the law is held captive under the dominion 
and tyranny of sin, we may easily conclude from this, 
that those only who are in Christ Jesus, and who walk 
after the Spirit, and not after the flesh, are free from all 
•condemnation. Because the law, the right, the power, 
the form or virtue of the vivifying Spirit, which is, and 
can be obtained, in Jesus Christ alone, has liberated 
persons of this description from the law, the power, and 
the force, of sin and death, from the empire and domin¬ 
ion of sin, and its condemnation. Christ Jesus could 
lawfully do this by his Spirit, as being the person in 
whose flesh sin was condemned; that it has no longer 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


269 


any right, neither can have any, over those who are 
Christ’s. In which flesh, indeed, he was sent by his 
Father, because this very thing was impossible to the 
law, weakened as it was through the flesh. And thus 
it has come to pass, that the right of the law, which it 
had over us when we were still under the law, is com¬ 
pleted or fulfilled in persons of this description, who 
have become Christ’s people through faith ; that they 
might hereafter live, be influenced and governed, by 
his grace, and according to the guidance of his Holy 
Spirit. From these things we may certainly conclude, 
that sin cannot have dominion over them ; and, there¬ 
fore, that they are able to yield their members instru¬ 
ments of righteousness to God, as those who have 
been translated from the death of sin to the life of the 
Spirit .”—Works of Arminius , translated by James 
Nichols, vol. ii, pp. 598-600. 

I do not adopt every point and shade of this learned 
and ingenious exposition, though I have judged it best 
to introduce it at length. So far, however, as it at¬ 
tributes the fulfilment of the righteousness of the law 
to Christ, for, and in relation to those who are justi¬ 
fied through the condemnation of sin in the flesh, I 
think he has the true sense of the apostle. But, what¬ 
ever the apostle means in this passage, I think it quite 
clear that he has no reference to the state of entire 
sanctification; and that, as a proof text in connection 
with that doctrine, it is of no weight. Some of my 
reasons for this opinion are the following :— 

1. The supposition, that the apostle is here speaking 
of the state and privileges of entire sanctification, does 
not accord with the scope and connections of the pas¬ 
sage. 

Our commentators, with several who are decidedly 
Calvinistic, agree in applying the language of the 


270 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


seventh chapter of Romans to one under the lashes 
of an awakened conscience; or under the law work. 
Is it, then, likely that the inspired author would 
leap directly from a state of conviction to a state 
of perfect purity? Is entire sanctification the first de¬ 
gree of light which a benighted sinner experiences ? 
Is it the next stage in his progress? How could it 
happen, that, from the wretchedness of spiritual bond¬ 
age, the great apostle should conduct us at once to a 
state in which we fulfil the righteousness of the law , 
in the high sense contended for by some? This would, 
indeed, be consistent with the system which identifies 
justification and entire sanctification as to time. But 
this is neither the Scriptural nor the Wesleyan view, 
as we shall see hereafter. 

2. The language of the passage legitimately refers 
to justification, and by no means necessarily implies 
entire sanctification. 

The eighth chapter opens with the proposition that 
“there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ 
Jesus.” What is this but another mode of saying that 
they are justified ? Justification is the pardon of sin, 
and consequently the removal of “condemnation.” 
What follows is in illustration of the truth and import¬ 
ance of this proposition. There is not an expression 
in the whole chapter, descriptive of the state and privi¬ 
leges of believers, which is not literally applicable to 
the merely justified person. And that the apostle 
should introduce one clause descriptive of the state of 
entire sanctification, when, both before and after it, 
without any notice of a change in the characters 
he is describing, he speaks of the privileges of the 
merely justified, is not to be presumed without proof. 

3. There is, as we have seen, a class of commentators, 
Arminian as well as Calvinistic, who attribute the fuU 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


271 


filrr.ent of the righteousness of the law to Christians— 
“those who are in Christ Jesus”—who understand the 
expression in a qualified sense, a sense which may 
be applicable to any justified person. Some of them, 
as we have seen, tell us that “ it is not perfect obedi¬ 
ence to the moral law ; but it is such a degree of faith 
and holiness as believers may attain through the influ¬ 
ence of the Spirit.” In this Macknight a Calvinist, 
and Benson an Arminian, perfectly agree, for the lan¬ 
guage is quoted from the former by the latter. Conse¬ 
quently, as this passage proves neither legal nor Chris¬ 
tian perfection, it is wholly irrelevant in proof of the 
practicability and fact of perfect obedience to the moral 
1 aw. 

The leading argument brought against the position, 
that the moral law, considered in all its breadth, is not 
practicable by fallen man, is, that it would be wholly 
unjust and tyrannical to require of men what they 
have no power to perform. 

This would be a perfectly valid argument in proof that 
the requirements of the law were, originally practica¬ 
ble. When man came pure from the hands of his Ma¬ 
ker, he must have been fully adequate to all that the law 
required ; otherwise God would have been a hard mas¬ 
ter, reaping where he had not sown. But what we 
maintain, is, that man may, by his own fault, lose his 
power to obey, and yet be held to the obligation, with¬ 
out injustice. Cessante capacitate subditi non cessat 
obligatio—The obligation to perform does not cease 
when the ability to do so ceases —is a known maxim 
in civil law. If a debtor becomes insolvent, he is not 
necessarily released from his obligations to his credit¬ 
ors. If a man by intemperance, prodigality, or even by 
misfortune, wholly loses his ability to discharge pecu¬ 
niary obligations, it does not follow that he owes 


272 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


nothing. The obligation remains after the ability has 
ceased. 

And so the law of God retains its claim upon the 
sinner for the perfect obedience which it originally re¬ 
quired, though he is unable to render that obedience. 
This is indeed the very basis of the mediatorial sys¬ 
tem. If the law had relinquished its claims, so as to 
meet the condition and ability of man, why, then, his 
salvation would have been the result of concession—a 
relinquishment of the claims of the law —instead of an 
atonement , which magnifies the law , and makes it 
honorable. 

It cannot be urged against thq view here presented, 
that, upon the same ground upon which God can justly 
hold the sinner under obligations to a law, whose con¬ 
ditions he cannot meet, he might justly require of him 
impossible conditions of salvation. For though the 
common sense and justice of the world would justify 
a creditor in holding his claim against an insolvent 
debtor, as in law and equity good; yet should he pro¬ 
pose to compromise with his debtor, and, in professed 
clemency, to give him a release upon certain conditions; 
or by giving him time, putting him into business, or 
compounding with him for part pay; the same common 
sense and common justice would require that the terms 
or conditions of the compromise should be within the 
reach of the insolvent debtor. And, as-God has pro¬ 
vided for man a way of salvation, and proposes to him 
certain terms of reconciliation, moral justice, as well 
as goodness, requires that these terms should be prac¬ 
ticable by all. But I must hasten to the conclusion 
of this discussion. 

We deny that Christian perfection implies perfect 
obedience to the moral law, and for the following rea¬ 
sons :— 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


273 


1. Perfect obedience to the moral law would pre¬ 
clude the necessity of forgiveness, and the confession 
of sin. 

This objection was brought against the doctrine of 
Christian perfection, as held by Mr. Wesley, but was 
always so met as to show that he did not hold to a per¬ 
fection which excluded all shortcomings, or failures 
to meet the claims of the perfect law. Mr. Wesley 
says :—“ The most perfect have continued need of the 
merits of Christ, even for their actual transgressions, 
and may say for themselves, as well as for their 
brethren, ‘Forgive us our trespasses .’”—Plain Ac¬ 
count, p. 64. 

Another pertinent passage we find in Mr. Wesley 
is as follows:—“ 1. As long as we live, our soul is 
connected with the body. 2. As long as it is thus con¬ 
nected, it cannot think but by the help of bodily organs. 
3. As long as these organs are imperfect, we are liable 
to mistakes, both speculative and practical. 4. Yea, 
and a mistake may occasion my loving a good man less 
than I ought; which is a defective, that is, a wrong 
temper. 5. For all these we need the atoning blood, 
as indeed for every defect or omission. Therefore, 
6. All men have need to say daily, ‘ Forgive us our 
trespasses.’”— Wesley's Works, vol. iv, p. 107. 

2. It would supersede, at least for the time being, 
the necessity of the merits of Christ. 

Whenever the Christian may be supposed capable 
of perfectly meeting the claims of God’s holy law, then 
we must suppose him capable of standing in the divine 
favor upon merely legal grounds. If he does all that 
the law requires, what need has he of atonement? For 
the time being, so long as he perfectly meets the claims 
of the law, he is justified by the deeds of the law, and 
has no need to plead the atonement of Christ as the 
18 


274 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


grounds of his acceptance. No matter how he came 
into this condition, while he occupies it, that is, while 
he perfectly meets the claims of God’s perfect law, he 
needs no atonement for that time. If he perfectly 
keeps the law, he not only does all that is required, but 
he does it in the manner in which it is required ; and 
how he can need an atonement at all, for the time he 
renders this obedience, no one can tell. But as we have 
proved that our best works, even those flowing from a 
sanctified nature, come short of the standard set up in 
the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement, 
we cannot admit the fact or the possibility of perfect 
obedience to the law. For, as says Mr. Wesley, 
“ Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only 
through Jesus Christ.” 

It has been assumed that this argument is fully 
answered by the assertion that we must still stand in 
continual need of the atonement, though we perfectly 
keep the law, because it is through the atonement that 
we are enabled perfectly to do what the law requires. 
In reply to this it may be said, that in the objection I 
do not mean to say that the doctrine I oppose does 
away with the necessity of an atonement, so far as it is 
necessary to place us upon salvable ground, or to grant 
us the pardon of past sin, or as the meritorious cause 
of the influences of the Holy Spirit which are afforded 
to aid our feeble powers. All this I know the assertors 
of the views I oppose explicitly admit;—and this is no 
great matter, for Pelagius admits about as much. But 
what I mean, is, that the idea of perfect obedience to 
the law supersedes the necessity of the grace and the 
merit of the atowement as the reason for the acceptance 
of such obedience. The true theory maintains that the 
merits of Christ are necessary and available, not only 
to afford us aid in doing what God requires, but also 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


275 


in rendering what we do acceptable. It is the direct 
necessity of the atonement in rendering our good works 
pleasing and acceptable to God , that the legal doctrine 
here opposed wholly destroys. It is fatal to this theory 
that it cannot be made to consist with the necessity of 
direct and constant contact with the blood e/ Christ. 
Being enabled, no matter how, perfectly to meet the 
claims of the original law, our works are accepted on 
their own account , being all that the law demands, and 
consequently there is no need, for the time being, of the 
merit and grace of atonement. 

The priestly office of Christ is thus, for the time 
being, wholly superseded. But Mr. Wesley says :— 
“The best men still need Christ in his priestly office 
to atone for their omissions, their shortcomings, (as 
some not improperly speak,) their mistakes in judg¬ 
ment and practice, and their defects of various kinds. 
For these are all deviations from the perfect law, and 
consequently need an atonement.” 

3. It would do away with the doctrine of continued 
justification by faith. 

But as “the just shall live by faith,” (Hab. ii, 4 ; 
Rom. i, 17; Gal. ii, 20; iii, 11 ; Heb. x, 38,) as “ we 
walk by faith,” (2 Cor. v, 7,) and as we “ stand by 
faith,” (2 Cor. i, 24)—that is, as faith, a faith that 
works by love and purifies the heart, is the condition 
of our continued justification, and of final salvation—it 
is of vast practical importance that its constant and 
undeviating necessity be maintained. But what kind 
of faith has he who fully meets the claims of God’s 
holy law? I cannot conceive how true Christian faith 
could consist with the state of such an individual. The 
great atonement is the prime object of a Christian’s 
faith. But if he does not need this, what does he believe 
for? Having once believed for justification and sancti- 


276 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


fication, faith as a condition of salvation has, upon this 
hypothesis, accomplished its work, unless he happen 
to fall from grace, and then it might be necessary for 
him to believe again to the end that he might receive 
pardon and renewal. But while he perfectly keeps the 
law, he has no guilt or pollution to be put away by the 
atonement; and, consequently, needs not to exercise 
faith in the atonement to that end. He stands upon 
the condition of legal obedience just as really as Adam 
did before the fall; the only difference being, that in 
his case, should he fall, there.is a Saviour already pro¬ 
vided for him, whereas in Adam’s case one was pro¬ 
vided subsequently. How this isolation from Christ, 
by the complete destruction of the great principle by 
which the soul of the believer is held in connection with 
him, will strike the mind of the pious Christian, I need 
scarcely inquire. He who says and feels, 

“ Every moment, Lord, I need 
The merit of thy death,” 

will scarcely hesitate to conclude that the theory here 
opposed is “another gospel,” and, consequently, should 
be promptly and utterly rejected. 

In view of the foregoing arguments and reasoning I re¬ 
ject the doctrine of legal perfection: by which I mean the 
practicability of perfect obedience to the moral law. We 
hold that the moral law is in force, and is the standard 
of human obligation; but without the atonement, is a 
mere covenant of works, and, to fallen beings, is wholly 
impracticable. The gospel, which is the law* of love— 
“the law of liberty”—offers salvation upon other terms, 
and yet provides for the vindication of the broken law. 
The condition of justification at first is faith alone; 
and the condition of continued acceptance is faith 
working hy love. There are degrees of faith and de¬ 
grees of love. There is such a thing as weak faith, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


277 


and there is such a thing as strong faith ; and the same 
may be said of love. The whole language of the Bible 
is adjusted to the idea of the incipient stages, the ad¬ 
vancement, and the maturity of these graces. Perfect 
faith and perfect love is Christian perfection. Mr. 
Wesley says :—“ This perfection cannot be a delusion 
unless the Bible is a delusion too; I mean, ‘ loving 
God with all the heart, and our neighbor as ourselves.’ 
I pin down all its opposers to this definition of it. 
No evasion ! No shifting the question ! Where is 
the delusion of this ?”— Wesley's Works, vol. iv, 
p. 290. 

Are not faith and love the very essence of Christianity ? 
If so, would not the perfection of these graces make a 
perfect Christian? If our Christianity is to be esti¬ 
mated by the strength and efficiency of our faith and 
love, do we not reach or fall short of the standard of 
Christian character just so far as we meet or fall short 
of perfect faith and perfect love? All this being 
granted, it appears clear that Christian character is 
estunated by the conditions of the gospel; and that 
Christian perfection implies the perfect performance 
of these conditions, and nothing else. 

Now the two branches of the law,—“Thou shalt love 
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor 
as thyself,”—as a condition of continued acceptance, to 
a Christian implies nothing more than the exercise 
of the Christian grace of love, just so far as his powers 
and means will enable him to exercise this grace, con¬ 
sidering his weaknesses and infirmities. But, as the 
rule of duty to unfallen humanity, it implied much more 
even the exercise of unimpaired powers and faculties 
of soul in the love and service of God : and, as a rule 
of duty to the holy angels, it must imply still more, 
even all the love and obedience that the first-born sons 


278 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


of light are capable of rendering. So we may be per¬ 
fect with reference to our abilities to love, and yet not 
perfect with reference to the requirements of the ori¬ 
ginal law:—it may be all we can now render, and yet 
not all we could have rendered if we had never sinned. 
It is the performance of what grace will enable us to 
perform, if we are true to our trust—meeting fully the 
conditions of the gospel—that our venerated founder 
calls Christian perfection; always distinguishing this 
from angelic and Adamic perfection. This is the 
perfection which is taught in the New Testament, 
and which is not a mere theory, but an experimental 
and a practical reality. 


LECTURE XIII. 

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE-CONTINUED. 


“ How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?”— 
Rom. vi, 2. 

In the two preceding lectures I considered various 
objections which are urged against the doctrine of the 
attainableness of entire sanctification in this life. The 
more weighty objections, however, yet remain to be 
examined. They are those which are founded upon 
certain portions of Scripture which are supposed to be 
directly opposed to this doctrine. It shall be the object 
of this lecture carefully and candidly to inquire into the 
true sense of such passages, and to see whether, when 
properly understood, they in any measure militate 
against our views. 

I have for the Bible a most sincere and unreserved 
veneration, and to its decisions I would bow with un- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


279 


qualified submission. I believe it to be God’s own 
word—all inspired—and consequently, to speak the 
truth without mixture of error, and to be entirely con¬ 
sistent with itself. If, then, our opponents are able to 
bring “ the direct testimony of the Bible” against our 
views upon the subject in question, and if, upon due 
investigation, it shall appear that they have treated their 
witness fairly :—if there is no reason to question their 
construction of the language they adduce, why, then, 
we are in error, and must recede from our ground. 
Now let us see what is produced under this head. 

We are told, that “not a single text can be ad¬ 
duced, which, properly understood, attributes perfec¬ 
tion to good men in this life. On the contrary, the 
criminal imperfection of them all is most plainly as 
serted.”* If this proposition can be maintained, wo 
are certainly wide of the mark of evangelical truth. 

The first scripture adduced by the reviewer to prove 
the latter part of the above assertion is Eccl'es. vii, 20, 
“For there is not a just man upon earth that doeth 
good and sinneth not.” Another passage, similar in 
language, which is presented, is 1 Kings viii, 46, “For 
there is no man that sinneth not.” These passages 
are found in the article referred to, as usual, without 
illustration, criticism, or argument. They are sup¬ 
posed to be entirely conclusive. Hence it is simply 
remarked in relation to the first, that “ it is as evident 
from this passage that no one on earth is perfectly holy 
as that any are imperfect.”! This conclusion I do not 
admit, and for the reasons which follow. 

In my construction of these passages I appeal to the 
original. This I do not do because I have not a high 
respect for the present authorized version of the Bible. 
I believe it in general to be worthy of all confidence, 
* Princeton Review, July, 1842, p. 451. t Ibid 


280 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


and, on the whole, a better exhibition of the sense of 
the originals than any translation which has been sub¬ 
sequently made, or than any we are likely very soon 
to have. But in discussing the language of Scripture, 
in all cases of a difference of opinion the ultimate appeal 
must be to the originals. And our opponents, it may 
be presumed, will not object to this method of discus¬ 
sion, even should it be found that the sound of the 
words, as in the present version, is rather more favour¬ 
able to their views than the sense of the original text. 
I can scarcely be left to fear that critics so learned for 
such a reason will refuse to be governed by well-esta- 
blished laws of exigeses. 

1 Kings viii, 46, attrTpft tna ^3 I render, 
for there is no man who may not sin. And Eccles. 
vii, 20, am 1 ] aftt nitrrfe 1 ] fiaa p'ns tra ^ 
There is not a. righteous man upon earth who does 
good and may not sin. The verb am to sin in these 
passages is in the future, and I render it subjunctively ; 
with the negative particle, may not sin , that is, there is 
no man who is not liable to sin. The rule of Hebrew 
syntax authorizing this rendering may be found in all 
good Hebrew Grammars. I give it from Dr. Nord- 
heimer, as follows :—“ The future form of the verb is 
frequently used to predicate the future occurrence of 
an event as dependant either subjectively on the will 
of the agent or speaker, or objectively on external cir¬ 
cumstances. 

“ This form is used subjunctively, to denote contin¬ 
gency, that is, to predicate not the positive but the pos¬ 
sible or probable future occurrence of an event, signified 
in English by the auxiliaries may , might , &c., e. g., 
|-M whatever thy soul may desire , Deut 

xiv, 26 ; that he may instruct us concerji - 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


281 


ing his ways , Isa. ii, 3 ; fifcnan nmh 

that he may not destroy for you the produce of the 
ground , Mai. iii, 11; rp2ii am that the nations 

may know they (are) men , Psa. ix, 21; cxix, 115; 
fifc ^ whatever may happen to me , Job xiii, 

13 ; xiv, 6.”* 

In the application of the rule just recited to the 
passages under consideration, we are supported by 
some of the best critics, Romish, Lutheran, Calvinist, 
and Arminian. The Vulgate, or Jerome’s version, has 
non peccet, may not sin. In the interlineal translations 
in the Antwerp, London, and Paris Polyglotts ; in 
Castalio’s, Osiander’s, and Francis Junius’ versions, 
we have the same. And we have precisely the same 
rendering of the Syriac and Arabic in the London and 
Paris Polyglotts. This result I have arrived at from 
personal inspection of the authorities I quote, and I 
need not say to a scholar, that they present a tide of 
evidence in favour of the version I have given, that it is 
not easy for the sturdiest spirits to resist. We see 
here what the best scholars of any age since the com¬ 
mencement of the Christian era have determined in 
relation to the proper rendering of the original Hebrew 
text, without any reference at all lo the question at 
issue between us and our opponents on the subject of 
the necessary continuance of sin in believers. 

In addition to all this, there is a reason in the con¬ 
text of one of the passages in question, which makes 
our rendering necessary to preserve a consistent sense. 
(1 Kings viii,.46.) The words in question are preceded 
by “ if they sin,” which would be perfectly consistent 
with the parenthetic sentence which follows, as we 

* See Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language, vol. ii, Depend 
ant use of the Future , § 993. See also Stuart’s Hebrew Grammar 
$ 564, (h,) 0i.) 


282 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


translate it: “for there is no man who mm/not sin,” 
but would be scarcely at all consistent with the ex¬ 
pression of the sense our opponents give the passage. 
They would have Solomon say, If they sin , for they 
certainly will sin , as there is no man who does not sin 
all his life. What sense would there be in the 
hypothetical sentence “if they sin,” if indeed there 
had been no if in the case ? 

I have devoted so much attention to these passages 
because they are confidently relied upon, and on all 
occasions brought forward by our opponents, both 
learned and unlearned, as altogether conclusive—as 
decisively proving, that the best men continue to sin on 
through every step of their way to heaven! I will now 
close with Dr. Clarke’s notes upon the passages. 

Upon 1 Kings viii, 46, he says:—“ On this verse 
we may observe that the second clause., as it is here 
translated, renders the supposition in the first clause 
entirely nugatory ; for if there be no man that sinneth 
not , it is useless to say, if they sin; but this contra 
diction is taken away by reference to the original. 

‘laton 1 ’ “d ki yechetu lach , which should be translated 
if they shall sin against thee , or should they sin against 
thee; atorp tna ki ein Adam asher lo 

yecheta , for there is no man that may not sin; that is, 
there is no man impeccable , none infallible , none that 
is not liable to transgress. This is the true meaning 
of the phrase in various parts of the Bible, and so our 
translators have understood the original: for even in 
the thirty-first verse of this chapter they have trans¬ 
lated attrp yecheta , if a man trespass ; which cer¬ 
tainly implies he might or might not do it; and in this 
way they have translated the same word, if a soul sin, 
in Lev. v, 1 ; vi, 2; 1 Sam. ii, 25 ; 2 Chron. vi, 22, 
and in several other places. The truth is, the Hebrew 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


283 


has no mood to express words in the permissive or 
optative way, but to express this sense it uses the 
future tense of the conjugation kal. 

“ This text has been a wonderful strong hold for all 
who believe that there is no redemption from sin in 
this life ; that no man can live without committing sin, 
and that we cannot be entirely freed from it till we die. 
1. The text speaks no such doctrine : it only speaks 
of the possibility of every man sinning, and this must 
be true of a state of probation. 2. There is not another 
text in the divine records that is more to the purpose 
than this. 3. The doctrine is flatly in opposition to 
the design of the gospel; for Jesus came to save his 
people from tReir sins, and to destroy the works of the 
devil. 4. It is a dangerous and destructive doctrine, 
and should be blotted out of every Christian’s creed. 
There are too many who are seeking to excuse their 
crimes by all means in their power; and we need not 
imbody their excuses in a creed, to complete their 
deception, by stating that their sins are unavoidable .” 

Upon Eccles. vii, 20, “ atom lo yechta, that may 
not sin. There is not a man upon earth, however just 
he may be, and habituated to do good, but is peccable 
—liable to commit sin ; and therefore should con¬ 
tinually watch and pray, and depend upon the Lord. 
But the text does not say, the just man does commit 
sin , but simply that he may sin; and so our translators 
have rendered it in 1 Sam. ii, 25, twice in 1 Kings viii, 
31, 46, and 2 Chron. vi, 36.” 

Another passage which, it is supposed, is directly 
against us, is, James iii, 2, “ In many things we oflend 
all.” Mr. Wesley’s reply to the argument deduced 
from this text is short, but conclusive. It is as fol¬ 
lows :— 

“ True ; but who are the persons here spoken of? 


284 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Why, those many masters or teachers whom God ha 
not sent; not the apostle himself, nor any real Chris 
tian. That in the word we , used by a figure of speech, 
common in all other as well as the inspired writings, 
the apostle could not possibly include himself, or any 
other true believer, appears, First, from the ninth 
verse, 4 Therewith bless we God, and therewith curse 
we men.' Surely not we apostles ! not we believers ! 
Secondly, from the words preceding the text: 4 My 
brethren, be not many masters,’ or teachers, 4 knowing 
that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For 
in many things we offend all.’ We ! Who? Not the 
apostles, nor true believers, but they who were to 4 re¬ 
ceive the greater condemnation,’ because # of those many 
offences. Nay, Thirdly, the verse itself proves that 
4 we offend all,’ cannot be spoken either of all men or 
all Christians. For in it immediately follows the men¬ 
tion of a man who 4 offends not,’ as the we first men¬ 
tioned did; from whom therefore he is professedly 
contradistinguished, and pronounced a ‘perfect man.’ ”* 

And another is 1 John i, 8, 44 If we say we have no 
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 
The same clear and conclusive reason'er meets the 
argument from this passage with equal promptness, 
thus:— 

44 1 answer, (1.) The tenth verse fixes the sense of 
the eighth : 4 If we say we have no sin,’ in the former, 
being explained by, 4 If we say we have not sinned,’ in 
the latter verse. (2.) The point under consideration 
is not, whether we have or have not sinned heretofore ; 
and neither of these verses asserts that we do sin, or 
commit sin now. (3.) The ninth verse explains both 
the eighth and tenth: 4 If we confess our sins, he is 
faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse 
* Plain Account, pp. 24, 25. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


285 


us from all.unrighteousness.’ As if he had said, ‘I 
have before affirmed the blood of Christ cleanseth 
from all sin.’ And no man can say, ‘ I need it not; I 
have no sin to be cleansed from.’ ‘ If we say we have 
no sin,’ that ‘we have not sinned, we deceive our¬ 
selves,’ and make God a liar: but ‘ if we confess our 
sins, he is faithful and just,’ not only ‘ to forgive us our 
sins,’ but also ‘ to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,’ 
that we may ‘ go and sin no more.’ ”* 

The last argument from the Scriptures in favour of 
the necessary continuance of sin in believers which I 
shall notice, is that founded upon the seventh chapter 
of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Here, it is 
alleged, the apostle speaks of his own present expe¬ 
rience, and acknowledges the existence of corruptions 
—of the carnal mind—in himself. And it is urged that 
if the great apostle of the Gentiles was obliged to con¬ 
fess himself “ carnal, sold under sin,” it can hardly be 
expected that any this side of heaven may be entirely 
freed from sin. 

There are two views taken of the chapter in question. 
One is, that the apostle is speaking of his own state at 
the time of writing, and, of course, the same may be 
said of the best of Christians. The other is, that he is 
speaking of his former experience, when groaning 
under the bondage of the law, or that he personates 
one in that condition. 

I shall first consider the reasons which are assigned 
for the former view, and then attempt to prove the 
truth of the latter. 

As I find the arguments in favour of that exposition 
I oppose stated in the strongest light in the commen¬ 
taries of Professor Hodge and the Rev. Albert Barnes, 
[ shall state them in the language of these authors. 

* Plain Account, pp. 25, 26. 


280 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE Of 


Professor Hodge says:—“That Paul throughout 
the latter part of this chapter is describing his own 
feelings when writing, appears evident from the fol¬ 
lowing considerations. 

“ a. Because he uses the first person and the pre¬ 
sent tense throughout the passage, and says, 4 I consent 
to the law that it is good;’ 4 I delight in the law of 
God 4 I see another law in my members 4 O 
wretched man that I am 4 So then I myself serve the 
law of God,’ &c., &c. He does this with an earnest¬ 
ness and warmth which show that he is expressing the 
feelings of his own heart. No example is to be found 
in all the apostle’s writings analogous to this, if it be 
assumed that he is here personating another.”* 

This reasoning is not conclusive : for if it be true 
that 44 no example is to be found in all the apostle’s 
writings analogous to this—if it be assumed that he is 
here personating another”—still there may be reasons 
for considering this a solitary instance of the kind in 
the writings of St. Paul. It is not always possible, 
or ever necessary to find 44 examples” in all respects 
44 analogous” in order to understand a passage from 
any writer. But 44 examples” sufficiently analogous 
for our purposes can be found “in the apostle’s writings” 
which will be presented before the argument is closed. 
The commentator proceeds :— 

“ b. Because there is nothing in this passage incon¬ 
sistent with the experience ‘of the holiest of men. This 
has been shown in the commentary. The inward 
conflict here described every Christian understands 
and experiences.” 

Now in the 44 commentary” on the fourteenth verse 
the author says, 44 Carnal , when spoken of men, means 

* Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Philadelphia. 
1836. P. 176. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


287 


to be under the government of the flesh,” and on the 
phrase, sold under sin , he says, “ That is, a slave to 
sin.” But still another meaning he gives the words, 
in order to make them apply to the Christian character, 
but which suits it little better. He says :—“ The 
phrase in question, however, may also mean that one 
is subject to a power which, of himself, he cannot 
resist; against which he may and does struggle, and 
from which he desires to be free ; but which, notwith¬ 
standing all his efforts, still asserts its authority. This 
is a state of bondage. It is in this sense that Paul 
says he was sold under sin. This appears clearly 
from the following verses, which are explanatory of 
this clause.” Now is the true Christian in “ a state 
of bondage ?” The apostle declares that “ the law of 
the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” had made him “free 
from the law of sin and death,” chap, viii, 2. Is there 
no difference between being free and being in bondage ? 
When the author will prove this, which, by-the-by, he 
has not yet done to my satisfaction in his commentary, 
then will he have gained his point, or rather I n^iy 
say, he will have confounded things radically and 
essentially different, and have made the apostle totally 
unintelligible. Whether the language of this chapter 
does indeed accord “ with the experience of the holiest 
of men,” I shall more particularly inquire hereafter, 
simply remarking for the present, that this is wholly 
assumed by the author without proof. Again,— 

“c. the passage contains many declarations incon¬ 
sistent with the Scriptural account of unrenewed men. 
The Bible does not speak of unrenewed men as con¬ 
senting to the law, as hating sin and struggling against 
it, groaning under it as a tyrant’s yoke, as delighting 
in the law of God, and doing all this as to the inward 
or new man ’ 


288 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


This argument depends upon the author’s construc¬ 
tion of verse 22, “ I delight in the law of God after the 
inward man.” This he thinks “ expressive of real 
complacency and delight in the divine excellence as 
exhibited in the law,” and of course proof positive and 
conclusive that the apostle speaks of a person in a gra¬ 
cious state. But this argument is completely refuted 
by Professor Stuart, in his note upon this passage :— 

“ (22) hw^dofiaL yap .... av&ponov, for I delight in 
the law of God , as it respects the internal man. Tap 
illustrantis. The sentiment is, for substance, the same 
as in ver. 15-17 ; but the costume in which it appears 
is diverse. That the sentiment, moreover, is epexe- 
getical of ver. 21, is quite plain. Hence the yap with 
which it is introduced. 

“ In regard to the words; ovvriSofJtai here corresponds 
to avfi(j) / qfju in ver. 16; and Zoo avtiponov here, corre¬ 
sponds to eyo in ver. 17. If any one is disposed to 
urge here the strength of the expression ovvrjdo^ac rfi 
vopo, as being inconsistent with an unregenerate state, 
he t will do well to look back on ver. 14, and ask, whe¬ 
ther the expression there, on the other side, is not still 
stronger. The truth is, *in a contrast like this, where 
the mind of the writer is wrought Up to a high pitch 
of feeling, the mere forms of expression cannot in 
themselves go very far toward establishing any prin¬ 
ciple of doctrine. It is to the object at which the writer 
is aiming that we must look; and this object has been 
already brought to view. But if any one insists on 
urging the form of expression, I must ask him first to 
construe ver. 14 by the rule which he himself here 
adopts ; and then to compare Mark vi, 20 ; John v, 35; 
Matt, xiii, 20; John ii, 23-25; Acts viii, 13, comp, 
ver. 20-23 ; Isa. lviii, 2, where it is said of the wicked, 
that ‘ they delight to know my ways,’ and ‘ they take 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


289 


delight in approaching to God.’ Comp, also 1 Kings 
xxi, 27-29; 1 John iii, 9; Psa. cxix, 3. Many other 
passages of the like tenor could be adduced, in order 
«o show that a qualified sense is to be put on such ex¬ 
pressions. Above all, John xv, 22-24 ; Matt, vi, 24 ; 
Luke xvi, 13, and xiv, 26, show that very strong ex¬ 
pressions of this kind are to be modified according to 
the nature of the case which is under consideration. 

“ With such examples before us, and with the whole 
context (at least so it plainly appears to me) to remind 
us of the necessity of taking Gvvrjdoiiat in a qualified 
sense, I cannot hesitate to say, that ver. 22 only ex¬ 
presses in a more intense form, and with more feeling, 
what is simply expressed in ver. 16, ovfMjyrjfu t<P voiico. 
The approbation, complacency, (so to speak,) which 
reason and conscience yield to the divine law as holy 
and good, is the truth intended to be expressed. It is 
strongly expressed, indeed; but not more so than in 
the cases to which the reader is referred above, and 
about the exegesis of which there can be no disagree¬ 
ment. In fact, the very next verse shows, that the 
apostle cannot here be understood to mean the plea¬ 
sure which a regenerate and filial spirit takes in the 
divine law; for this, as chap, viii, 1-17 most clearly 
shows, would lead the person who might possess it, to 
‘ walk after the Spirit,’ and not ‘ after the flesh ;’ while 
here, the very individual who ‘ delights in the law of 
God after the inner man,’ is at the same time repre¬ 
sented as being ruled over by the law of sin and death, 
and led to destruction by it. Is this the real state of a 
child of God? Comp, viii, 9-14.”* 

Let us now attend to another of Professor Hodge’s 
reasons:— 

“ d. Because the conflict which is here described is. 

* Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 


290 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


in other passages, portrayed (for example, in Gal. v, 17) 
in language which, by common consent, can be applied 
only to true Christians. That these passages refer to 
the same subject is plain, not only from the fact that 
the flesh (or corrupt nature) is mentioned in both as the 
evil principle, but because the description in both cases 
is nearly in the same words. There the- flesh is said 
to war against the spirit, so that we cannot do the 
things that we would ; here the flesh or the law in the 
members is said to war against the law in the mind, 
so as to bring us into captivity to the law of sin. If, 
therefore, the one passage is descriptive of the expe¬ 
rience of the true Christian, so must also the other be.” 

The passage in Galatians upon which the professor 
relies is as follows:—“For the flesh lusteth against 
the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these 
are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot 
do the things that ye would,” Gal. v, 17. There is, 
however, an essential difference between this passage 
and the one he would illustrate by it. In the pas¬ 
sage in Galatians there is a conflict between the flesh 
and the Spirit. But in the passage especially in 
question, (Rom. vii, 14,) the flesh is dominant. The 
subject of the seventh of Romans is represented as 
struggling indeed, but never victorious—as making 
resistance, but still a captive—a slave to sin. In^the 
passage which he would make parallel, the flesh op¬ 
poses and curtails the operations of the Spirit, so that 
they could not do the things they would. They were 
weakened by the flesh, but it is not said they were 
conquered. Here the author totally fails : and failing 
here, his argument is wholly inconclusive.* But let 
us attend to his concluding reason :— 

* For a more complete view of the difference between these two 
passages, see Dr. Hammond on Romans vii, 23. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


291 


“ e. The context requires this interpretation. The 
apostle has been insisting on the necessity of our being 
free from the law in order to our justification and sanc¬ 
tification To show that his doctrine does not involve 
any reflection on the law, it was necessary to show 
why the law is thus inefficient. In order to accomplish 
this object, he explains how the law operates on the 
depraved heart. It arouses conscience, and it pro¬ 
vokes opposition. This is one part of its effect, but 
not the whole. Even when the heart is renewed, the 
law cannot by itself promote holiness. It presents, 
indeed, the form of beauty, and the soul delights in it 
after the inward man, but it cannot destroy the power 
of indwelling sin. The Christian, therefore, must look 
for deliverance, not to the law, but to the grace of God 
in Jesus Christ. It was essential, therefore, to the 
apostle’s object to show that, even for the true Chris¬ 
tian, the bondage of the law is unnecessary.” 

As to the object of the apostle the commentator is * 
doubtless correct, but the conclusion from it is a non 
sequitur. I do not mean the conclusion expressed in 
the quotation, that “ the Christian must look for deli¬ 
verance, not to the law, but to the grace of God in 
Christ Jesus”—this conclusion is good and valid— 
but his general conclusion, that therefore the apostle 
is speaking of one in a regenerate state. Let us see 
how this conclusion follows from his premises. 

“ The apostle,” he truly says, “ has been insisting on 
the necessity of our living free from the law, in order 
to our justification and sanctification.” To show this, 
without at the same time impugning the law, he shows 
the cause of the inefficiency of the law. “ It arouses 
conscience,”&c. But “ even when the heart is aroused, 
it cannot promote holiness.” The doctrine of this latter 
proposition is true enough, but it is wholly an assump- 


292 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


tion without proof that this is the true position taken 
by the apostle. Had he said, even when the heart is 
awakened , or the conscience aroused , the law cannot 
deliver from the power of sin— cannot sanctify —he 
would have said all that either the language or the 
scope of the apostle’s argument authorizes. A little 
examination will convince any one, that the comment¬ 
ator, in order to make his argument apply, assumes the 
main point in dispute, and that the point he assumes is 
not only unnecessary to give a consistent sense to the 
chapter under discussion, but involves the apostle in 
absurdities and contradictions, as we shall presently 
see. The grand object of the apostle, in this chapter 
is to show that the law cannot renew the heart. Now, 
whence the necessity, even if it were a conceded fact, 
to assert the triumphs of sin in the best of Christians 
through life ? This would be proving too much : for it 
would prove that the gospel , as well as the law , is in¬ 
effectual to the purposes of subduing the evils of the i 
human heart. How would this result tell upon the 
apostle’s ulterior design, which undoubtedly was to 
bring in the gospel in place of the law? Would he be 
likely to effect this object—that is, would he persuade 
the Jew to believe that the gospel is the more efficient 
system, by a laboured argument to prove that it is just 
as effectually baffled as is the law itself by the reigning 
power of human corruptions ? This would be a singu¬ 
lar course of argument indeed. 

The Rev. Mr. Barnes gives us six reasons for un¬ 
derstanding the seventh of Romans, “ as descriptive 
of the operations of the mind of Paul subsequent to his 
conversion.” These are mostly the same as those of 
Professor Hodge, and have been already answered 
The first and the last , however, may require special 
attention. The first is, “ Because it seems to me to 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


293 


be the most obvious. It is that which will strike plain 
men as being the natural meaning; men who have not 
a theory to support, and who understand language in 
its usual sense.” 

I cannot admit that any one capable of grasping the 
scope of the apostle’s argument, as contained in the 
sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters, would consider 
Mr. Barnes’ construction of the seventh chapter “ the 
most obvious.” It might strike some “ plain men as 
being the most naturalbut they will, I think, gene¬ 
rally be those who, if they “ have not a theory to sup¬ 
port,” yet approach the investigation under strong 
biases. The language of the Bible can scarcely mean 
anything else to most men than what they have always 
been accustomed to hear attributed to it by their teach¬ 
ers. It is hard work for Mr. Barnes himself to depart 
from the exegesis sanctioned by the puritan fathers 
upon certain proof texts, though he ventures to go wide 
of their doctrinal view! upon several points, and some¬ 
times at the hazard of the charge of inconsistency. 
His last reason for his exposition is as follows:— 
“ Because it accords with the experience of Chris¬ 
tians, and not with sinners. It is just such language 
* as plain Christians, who are acquainted with their own 
hearts, use to express tl^eir feelings.” 

Here I am at issue with our commentator. I must, 
however, admit that some “plain Christians” use the 
language of the seventh chapter of Romans “ to ex¬ 
press their feelings.” And I shall not attempt to 
decide whether “their feelings” are wrong, or the 
“language” they “use to express” them, is improperly 
applied. There may be many in the churches whose 
spiritual condition is accurately defined in the portion 
of Scripture under examination. And there may be 
many others who, from bad instruction, have always 


294 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


been accustomed to use this language in relation to 
themselves, who have never particularly examined the 
question of the propriety of this application of it. The 
question, however,* to be settled is, whether the lan¬ 
guage of Paul in the seventh of Romans is really de¬ 
scriptive of a regenerate state—of the feelings of St. 
Paul after his conversion. Now let us contrast one 
passage of this chapter with what our author says upon 
another portion of the epistle. Chap, vii, 14, “But 
I am carnal, sold under sin.” Upon chap, vi, 11, 
“ Reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,” 
Mr. Barnes remarks :—“ So that sin shall have no 
influence or control over you, anymore than the objects 
of this world have over the dead in their graves.” And 
again, upon verse 2, “ How shall we that are dead to 
sin live any longer therein ?” he observes :—“ It is 
impossible for those who are dead to act as if they 
were alive. To be dead to a thing is a strong expres¬ 
sion, denoting that it has no influence over us. A man 
that is dead is 'uninfluenced and unaffected by the 
affairs of this life. When it is said, therefore, that a 
Christian is dead to sin, the sense is, that it has lost 
its influence over him ; he is not subject to it; he is in 
regard to that, as the man in the grave is to the busy 
scenes and cares of this life.” 

This, then, we may fairly conclude is the commen¬ 
tator’s view of Christian experience—that it consists in 
being dead to sin, that is, delivered from it—“ that it 
has lost its influence over him.” And yet upon chap, 
vii, 14, w^hich he says “accords with the experience 
of Christians, and not with sinners,” he says, “ Sold 
under sin, is borrowed from the practice of selling 
captives taken in war, as slaves. It here means to 
deliver to the power of any one, so that he shall be 
dependant on his will and control.” And he proceeds 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 295 

to apply his illustration, and says : “ He [Paul] was 
subject to it, [sin,] and under its control;” that “ it had 
such an influence over him as to lead him to commit 
it,” &c. Now let any one bring these two expositions 
together and see how they harmonize. The Christian 
is dead to sin , that is, “ it has lost its influence over 
him ; he is not subject to it; he is in regard to that, as 
the man in the grave is to the busy scenes and cares of 
this life.” And yet St. Paul describes the same cha¬ 
racter when he says he is sold under sin , that is, ac¬ 
cording to our commentator, “ he was subject to it, and 
under its control—it had such an influence over him 
as to lead him to commit it!!!” Now had this author 
intended to contradict himself as directly as possible 
in these expositions, could he have done it more effec¬ 
tually ? Professor Hodge involves himself in the same 
inconsistency, though his phraseology is a little more 
guarded. The principles of interpretation adopted by 
these gentlemen are radically wrong, and it is not mar¬ 
vellous that they conflict with themselves. 

Now I affirm, on the contrary, that the language of 
the seventh chapter of Romans does not accord “ with 
the experience of Christiansand our learned com¬ 
mentators themselves, in other places, apply language 
to this experience, utterly at war with this exposition, 
they themselves being permitted in both instances 
to give their own construction of it. Into similar in¬ 
consistencies is every commentator drawn who takes 
the same view. He is compelled to give a sense to 
the language of St. Paul in the sixth and eighth chap¬ 
ters of the Epistle to the Romans, which cannot be 
made to harmonize with what is found in the seventh 
chapter upon the hypothesis that he is speaking of 
the same character. Common propriety and common 
sense will necessarily forbid our confounding bondage 


29 0 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


and liberty—abject slavery and perfect freedom. No 
powers of criticism can ever reconcile them—no soph¬ 
istry can make the effort even plausible. 

I shall now proceed to assign reasons for the oppo- 
site view of the design of the apostle in the portion of 
his Epistle to the Romans now under consideration. 
I humbly conceive that the only consistent view of the 
seventh of Romans is, that it refers to a person under 
the law—convinced by the law of the evil of sin, but 
not yet delivered from its power by the gospel of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

The following is the argument of the learned Dr. 
Whitby. On verse 25 he says :— 

“ A vrbg eyb), the same man ] Of whom he had 
before spoken, not I, Paul, writing this epistle. It 
hath been a controversy since St. Austin’s time, whe¬ 
ther St. Paul here speaketh in his own person or 
in the person of a regenerate man, or only in the per¬ 
son of a Jew conflicting with the motions of his lusts, 
only by the assistance of the letter of the law without 
the aids and powerful assistance of the Holy Spirit; 
which is as great an instance of the force of prejudice 
and the heat of opposition to pervert the plainest 
truths, as can be happily produced ; for I think nothing 
can be more evident and unquestionably true than this, 
that the apostle doth not here speak of himself in his 
own person , or in the state he was then in, but as the 
ancient commentators do interpret him, 6i eavrov 6 
AnoaroXog rdv kolvov uvOgonov dyXol, by himself he 
represents man in common, and saith not as he might 
have done, you that are under the law are carnal, but 
ra, 6Keiv(x)v eff eavrov oxyparifav nai to rga^v ocpodpdv 
enXvov nai Xeaivcdv ry iregi eavrdv GxyparoXoyia, repre¬ 
senting what belonged to them in his own person , and 
so taking off the harshness and mollifying the invi- *<ms- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


297 


ness of the sentence by speaking of it in his own per 
son, he saith, I am carnal, sold under sin. So Photius 
and CEcumenius. Theodoret also doth inform us that 
the apostle here introduceth verse 14, T ov rrpd 
Trig x° b Q iT °g &vOpctnov iroXiogKOVfievov vixo tgjv rraO&v, 
a man before grace overcome by his passions; for he 
calls him carnal who had not yet obtained the assist¬ 
ance of the Holy Spirit 4 And again, verse 23, he 
adds, that the apostle having discoursed all these 
things cdore dei^ai riveg fiev npd) ryg x^9 ir °g vpev, To 
show ivhat we were before grace , and what we were 
made after grace, and as it were, taking upon himself 
the person of those who before grace were vanquished 
by sin, he groans and laments as a man set in the 
midst of his enemies; enslaved and constrained to 
serve, and seeing no help; and thus he shows the law 
unable to help us. And so Origen also frequently in 
his commentary on the place ; and St. Austin saith 
expressly and frequently, Describiter homo sub lege 
positus ante gratiam. Liber expos, quat, propos , ex 
Epist. ad Rom. Quo loco videtur mihi Apostolus, 
transfigurasse in se hominem sub lege positum , ad 
simplic. Mediol, l. 1. Et in hcec verba, non ego 
operor , illud, fyc., loquitur adhuc ex persona hominis 
sub lege constituti nondum sub gratia : though he was 
pleased afterward to change his opinion, and so gave 
occasion to the perverting the plain sense of the 
apostle. For confutation of this dangerous opinion, I 
need not say much after the labours of Arminius, the 
Rev. Dr. Hammond, Mr. Bull, and Mr. Kettlewell, 
who have made it manifest. 

“ First. That it is usual with the apostle to make this 
metaschematism, or to speak especially of things that 
might be otherwise offensive or ungrateful, in his own 
name, when indeed they belong not to him, but to 


29S 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


other men; as in these words, Rom. iii, 7, ‘ If the 
truth of God hath more abounded through my lie , 
why am I also judged as a sinner V that is, not I, Paul, 
but I, who make this objection. So Gal. ii, 16, 17. 

1 Cor. iv, 6, ‘ These things yeraoxygaTLaa, I have in a 
figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your 
sakesl 1 Cor. vi, 12; x, 22, 30; xiii, 2; Eph. ii, 3; 
1 Thess. iv, 17. 

“ Secondly. That such things are in this chapter said 
of the person spoken of, as can by no means agree to 
St. Paul , or to any regenerate person : to which may 
be added, 

“ 1. That had St. Paul spoken here of himself, con¬ 
sidered in the state in which he was at the inditing of 
this epistle, he must have contradicted what he said of 
himself in the Epistle to the Thessalonians and to the 
Corinthians, which were written before this epistle. 
For (1) in his Epistle to the Thessalonians, he saith, 
‘Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and 
justly, and unblameably, we behaved ourselves among 
you that believe,’ 1 Thess. ii, 10. In his Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians he speaks thus: * This is 
our rejoicing, even the testimony of our conscience, 
that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not in fleshly 
wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have conversed 
in this world,’ 2 Cor. i, 12. ‘That he knew nothing 
by himself for which to condemn himself,’ 1 Cor. iv, 4. 
‘ That he kept under his body and brought it into 
subjection,’ 1 Cor. ix, 27. Now can the man who is 
‘ carnal,’ and ‘ sold under sin,’ who hath no power in 
him to do any good, who ‘ finds a law in his members 
warring against the law of his mind, and bringing him 
into captivity to the law of sin which is in his mem¬ 
bers,’ call God and the church to witness to his holy 
and unblameable life ? Can he boast of keeping under 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 2#9 

liis fleshly body and bringing that into subjection, which, 
by his own confession, bringeth him into captivity? 
Can he who does not what he would m his mind and 
conscience do, but what he hates; not ‘ the good 
which he would, but the evil which he would not’ 
do; can he, I say, rejoice in the testimony of his con¬ 
science ? Can he honestly declare ‘ he knows nothing 
by himself, for which his conscience can condemn 
him ?’ 

“ 2. How oft doth the apostle propose himself for a 
pattern to the churches unto whom he writes, requiring 
them to be followers of ‘ him, as he was also of Christ,’ 

1 Cor. xi, 1. And again, ‘What things you have 
learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, 
these do, and the God of love and peace shall be with 
you,’ Phil, iv, 8. That is, be you ‘ carnal, sold under 
sin,’ living in the commission of the things you hate, 
and your mind condemns, and doing what you judge 
to be evil, and yielding yourselves ‘ captive to the law 
of sin which is in your membprs,’ and then ‘the God 
of love and peace shall be with you.’ This sure, is an 
absurd, if not blasphemous exhortation, and yet, ac¬ 
cording to this exposition/ it must be suitable to the 
mind of the apostle. 

“ 3. With what indignation doth he reject the accu¬ 
sations of them who looked upon him, as ‘ walking 
after the flesh,’ and how severely doth he threaten 
them, how peremptorily doth he reject their scandalous 
imputation! declaring that ‘though he walk in the 
flesh, yet did he not walk according to the flesh,’ 

2 Cor. x, 2, 3; and yet if he were ‘ carnal, sold under 
sin ;’ if with the flesh he served the law of sin ; if the 
law of the fleshly members ‘ warred against the law of 
his mind, and brought him into captivity to the law of 
sin ;’ he doth here in effect confess what there he 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


m 

peremptorily denies, and with such indignation doth 
reject.!' 

“4. This exposition of the seventh chapter makes it 
entirely to confute the chapter which immediately 
goes before, and that which follows after ; and it gives 
an invincible strength to the objections he endeavours 
to answer in the sixth chapter . The first objection 
there begins by way of inquiry, ‘ What do we say then, 
Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound V His 
second, by way of inquiry, ‘ Shall we sin because we 
are not under the law, but under grace V ver. 15. ‘ God 
forbid,’ saith he, that it should be thus with any Chris¬ 
tian ; and yet, according to this exposition, it was thus 
with himself, one of the best of Christians ; for sure, 
he must continue in sin, who was still ‘ sold under sin,’ 
still ‘ serving the law of sin with his flesh ;’ still doing 
that evil he allowed not, the evil which he hated,* and 
would not do; and who was ‘ still brought into cap¬ 
tivity to the law of sin which was in his members.’ 

“ Again, in his answqjr to these inquiries, he shows 
the Christian could not continue in, or live any longer 
in it, because he was ‘ dead to sin,’ his ‘ old man was 
crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be 
destroyed, that henceforth he might not serve sin,’ 
ver. 2, 6. And because being dead to, he was ‘ freed 
from sin,’ ver. 7, he was made ‘ free from sin,’ and 
‘ became the servant of righteousness.’ But can he 
that is ‘ sold under sin,’ and ‘ brought into captivity to 
the law of sin, which is in his members,’ be at the 
same time ‘ dead to sin,’ and £ free from sin ?’ Can he 
who ‘ with his flesh serves the law of sin,’ be said to 
4 cease from sin, and not henceforth to serve sin V not 
‘to obey it in the lusts thereof,’ ver. 12, not ‘to yield 
his members instruments of sin unto unrighteousness,’ 
ver. 13. Surely there is as clear an opposition between 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


301 


the Christian represented in the sixth chapter, as free 
from sin, and in the seventh, as miserably enslaved to 
the law of sin and death which was in his members, 
as between light and darkness. 

“ Again, he saith expressly, chap, viii, 2, 4 The law 
of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free 
from the law of sin and death.’ Whereas the person 
mentioned in the seventh ‘ is sold under sin,’ is ‘brought 
into captivity to the law of sin,’ and crieth out under 
his bondage, ‘ O miserable man that I am, who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death V he, therefore, 
cannot be the person freed by the Spirit from the law 
of sin and death. In fine, this exposition of the close 
of this chapter contradicts the beginning of it; foi 
there the apostle saith of himself, and all his Christian 
brethren, that this was only their state under the law 
from which they are delivered, ‘ that they might bring 
forth fruit unto God,’ and ‘serve him in newness of 
spirit.’ For what else can be the meaning of these 
words, verses 5, 6, ‘For when we were in the flesh, 
the motions of sin which were by the law did work in 
our members to bring forth 'fruit unto death; but now 
we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein 
we were held, that we should serve God in newness 
of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter ?’ So that 
they who make the apostle say of himself, that ‘ he was 
brought into captivity to the law of sin which was in 
his members,’ and to cry out, ‘ 0 wretched man that I 
am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?’ 
that is, this body of sin which worketh death; make 
him also to confess, that ‘ the motions of sin did still 
work in his members, to bring forth fruit unto death,’ 
and therefore that he was still in the flesh.”* 

The argument will be resumed in the next lecture. 

* Paraphrase and Commentary, vol. ii, pp. 37-39. 


302 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


LECTURE XIV. 

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE-CONTINUED. 

“ How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein 1”—• 
Rom. vi, 2. 

In the present lecture I shall conclude the argument 
upon the seventh of Romans with several authorities 
for the exposition we give of it. In the extract from 
Dr. Whitby, in the preceding lecture, reference is made 
to the discussion of this passage by the celebrated 
James Arminius. In his Works, published at Frank¬ 
fort, 1635, we have a dissertation of eighty-eight quarto 
pages upon the subject. The following are the pro¬ 
positions which he maintains :— 

“I. I will show that the apostle, in this place, 
speaks not of himself as he then was, nor of a person 
under grace, but takes on himself the character of a 
person placed under the law. 

“ II. I will prove that this opinion has never been 
condemned in the church as heretical, but has always 
had some advocates among the doctors of the church. 

“ III. I will show that no heresy, either Pelagian, 
or of any other kind, can be derived from this view, 
but that it is most clearly opposed to Pelagianism, 
and plainly and designedly refutes his first fallacy, 
(rrpG)TOV*pevdog.) 

“ I might finish the discussion after having unfolded 
these three points, confining myself within the bounds 
of a necessary defence of my view, unless it might 
seem to some wise and suitable to confute with similar 
arguments the contrary opinion as it is explained espe¬ 
cially at the present time. This I will do under two 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


303 


other heads, subjoined to the former three, which shall 
be analogous, and, as it were, parallel to the last two. 

“IV. Therefore I will prove that the sense which 
some of our modern doctors give to the apostle in this 
place was approved by none of the ancient doctors of 
the church, not even by Augustine, but was always 
repudiated and refuted by him and some others. 

“ V. And, finally, I will show that this opinion, as 
set forth by many at the present day, is injurious to 
grace, and adverse to good morals.” 

Under the second proposition the learned author 
gives us the views of the ancient fathers. He thus 
proceeds:— 

“ Now we come to the second division of our propo¬ 
sition, which it seems proper to discuss, for this pur¬ 
pose, that it may be clear to all that the opinion which 
I defend is not of late origin, or formed in my own 
brain, or borrowed from any heretic : but that it is very 
ancient, and that it was approved by a large part of the 
doctors of the primitive church: while by those who 
interpreted the passage differently, it was not rejected 
to such an extent that they deemed it worthy to be 
sealed with the mark of heresy. 

“ IrencEus (book iii, ch. 22) thus cites this passage : 

4 On account of this, therefore, he is the seal of our 
salvation, who being born of a virgin, is Emanuel, the 
Lord himself: since it was the Lord who saved them, 
as they could not be saved through themselves. And 
on account of this, Paul, declaring the weakness of 
man , says, “ I know that in my flesh there dwelleth no 
good thing;” signifying that the excellency of salva¬ 
tion is not of us, but of God. And again : “ 0 wretched 
man that I am ! who shall deliver me from the body 
of this death ?” Then he introduces the Deliverer, 

“ the#grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.”’ 


9 


304 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“ He does not speak of a regenerate person, or a 
believer, or a Christian, but simply of a man; which 
epithet neither the Scripture nor the fathers are accus¬ 
tomed to apply to him who is a Christian, a believer 
and regenerate. 

“ Tertullian , in his book ‘ De Pudicitia,’ chap. 17, 
says, ‘For although he denied that any good dwelt in 
his flesh—but this was according to the law of the let¬ 
ter under which he was then placed—yet he frees us 
from the infirmity of the flesh, according to the law of 
the Spirit to which he unites us. For, he says, the 
law of the Spirit of life has made me free from the law 
of sin and death. For although he seems to argire on 
the side of Judaism, he marks out an upright course, 
and a full amount of discipline for us, for the sake of 
whom, burdened by the law through the flesh, God 
sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin 
condemned sin in the flesh.’ 

“ Here Tertullian clearly affirms that this passage is 
to be explained as referring to a man who is under the 
law of the letter. Nor is it of much importance in 
opposition to this, if any one should say that this book 
was written by him when he was involved in heresy: 
for he was not heretical on this subject, and it appears 
from this that the opinion was then current that this 
chapter.should be thus understood. 

“ Origen on the seventh chapter of Romans. In 
respect to what he says, ‘ I am carnal, sold under sin 
here, as a teacher of the church, he takes on himself 
the character of the weak; as he says elsewhere, ‘ I am 
made weak to the weak, that I might gain the weak.’ 
And here, therefore, to the weaker, (that is, to the carnal,) 
and to those who were sold under sin, Paul is made 
a carnal man, and one sold under sin, and he speaks 
those things which it is usual for them to speak,either 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


305 


for excuse or accusation. Therefore, speaking in the 
character of one of them, he says, But I am carnal, 
sold under sin; that is, living according to the flesh, 
and brought under the power of sin by lust and con¬ 
cupiscence, ‘for that which I do, I allow not,’ &c. 

“ Shortly after he remarks : ‘And here Paul as carnal 
says, “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that 
dwelleth in me but Paul as spiritual says in another 
place, “ But I laboured more abundantly than they all, 
yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me ” 
As, therefore, he ascribes his labours not to himself, 
but to the grace of God which wrought in him; so 
also, as carnal, he ascribes his works which are not 
good, not to himself, but to sin which dwells and works 
in him. As he says, “ Now then it is no more I that 
do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in 
me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.” For 
Christ does not yet dwell in him, nor is his body the 
temple of the Holy Spirit. Yet this person, whose 
character is set forth, is not in all respects averse 
(alieuns) to the good, but in his purposes and desires 
begins to seek that which is good. Nevertheless he 
cannot as yet in fact and in his deeds attain to that 
which is good. For there is such a degree of weak¬ 
ness in those who have reached the beginning of con¬ 
version, that when they wish to do immediately every 
thing which is right, this effect does not immediately 
follow their desire,’ Ac. 

“ Cyprian , treating of the strife of the flesh and the 
spirit in his sixth sermon on the Lord’s Prayer, also in 
his book ‘ De Singularitate Clericorum,’ refers to the 
passage in the fifth of Galatians, ‘ The flesh lusteth 
against the Spirit,’ and not to this passage in Romans. 
But that he understood this passage in the seventh of 
Romans as referring to the dominion, and not merely 


306 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


to the indwelling of sin, is evident from his prologue 
‘ De Cardinalibus Operibus Christi,’ where, among 
other things, he says this : ‘ If I do not know who has 
inscribed this law upon my members, that with so vio 
lent tyranny it should oppress the Spirit, and the better 
and more noble nature should yield to the worse, it is 
necessary that I should endure it patiently, if I do not 
comprehend the Architect of the universe.’ And soon 
after, in the same prologue, he says : ‘ It is difficult to 
understand why this law of sin should overpower the 
law of righteousness in these and similar things, and 
why enfeebled reason, when it might stand, so misera¬ 
bly falls: especially when that weakness depends on 
the sentence of damnation, and the ancient transgres¬ 
sion received this inevitable punishment.’ 

“ Chrysostom , professedly discussing and explaining 
this passage in his commentary on the seventh chapter 
of Romans, speaks thus, agreeing with the authors 
before quoted : 4 Moreover, he subjoins this : “ But I 
am carnal,” describing a man living under the law and 
before the law.’ And soon after: ‘ Wherefore sin is 
opposed to the natural law; for this is what he speaks 
of when he says, “ the law of my mindit inflicts on 
the law of our nature a continual contest and warfare, 
when it arrays the forces of sin : for the Mosaic law 
was finally added over and above what was neces¬ 
sary.’ 

“ ‘ But yet these laws (the former showing what 
ought to be done, and the latter approving it) have 
not effected any thing in this contest against sin : so 
great is the tyranny of sin, and so continually is it 
victorious and triumphant. This indeed Paul means 
when, mentioning the conflict with opposing and vic¬ 
torious sin, he says, “ But I see another law in my 
members warring against the law of my mind, and 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


307 


bringing me into captivity to the law of sin,” &c. For 
he does not say merely conquering me, but bringing 
me into captivity to the law of sin. Nor does he say, 
bringing me into captivity to the impulse of the flesh, 
or to the carnal nature, but, to the law of sin, that is, tc 
the tyranny and power of sin.’ 

“ ‘ Soon after he says, “ O wretched man that I am ! 
who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” 
Do you see how great is the tyranny of wickedness, 
how it overcomes even the mind that delights in the 
law of God ? For there is no reason, he says, that any 
one should say that I am in captivity to sin, regarding 
with hatred the law of God, and averse to it. For I 
delight in and consent to it, and fly to it. But it has 
not been able to save me, flying to it. But Christ has 
saved me, flying from it. You grant this ; what excel 
lency, then, there is in grace !’ 

“ * And on chap, viii, ver. 2, “ The grace of the Holy 
Spirit has put an end to this arduous war by slaying 
sin, by which it is effected that we should have an 
easy contest, which, even at first, places crowns upon 
us, and afterward leads us into battle surrounded by 
many auxiliary forces.” ’ 

“ Basil the Great, in his first book concerning bap¬ 
tism, fol. 409, says, ‘ But let us bring forward what he 
has said elsewhere, delivering the same to us in a more 
rebuking manner, “For we know that the law is spi¬ 
ritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which 
I do, I allow not,” &c. And pursuing this same train 
of thought, that it is impossible that he who is held by 
sin should serve the Lord, he clearly shows to us our 
deliverer from this tyranny when he says, “ 0 wretched 
man that I am ! who shall deliver me from the body of 
this death ? I thank God,” &c.’ 

“ Boon after he says, ‘ It is therefore very necessary, 


308 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


according to what has been said and the like, if we 
have not received the grace of God in vain, that we 
should be first freed from the dominion of the devil, 
who leads him who is bound by sin to the wicked acts 
which he does not choose : and then we may become 
the disciples of the Lord, by denying all things present 
and ourselves, and by laying aside affection for this life, 
as the Lord himself said, “ If any man will come to me, 
let him deny himself,” &c.’ 

“ In his ‘ Moralium Summa,’ xxiii, ch. ii, foi. 677, 
he says, ‘For he who is unwillingly led by any sin 
ought to have known, that he is ruled by another sin 
pre-existing in him, to which he is a willing servant, 
so that he is led by the first, without his own consent, 
even to do those things which he does not choose. As 
in Rom. vii, 14-17, “For we know that the law is 
spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that 
which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I 
not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that 
which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is 
good. Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin 
that dwelleth in me.” ’ 

“ The same thing in his ‘ Quaestionum Compendium 
Explicatarum,’ quaes. 16, fol. 563 : ‘The soul which 
suffers the dominion of the desires, is not permitted by 
them to be free to do those things which it wishes, 
according to the view of the apostle already mentioned, 
who said, “ But I am carnal, sold under sin : for what 
I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.” 

And again: “ Now then, it is no more I that do it, 
but sin that dwelleth in me.” While God himself 
permits that this should happen to us for good, to see 
if in any way the soul might come to a knowledge 
of that which holds it in subjection, through those 
things which it suffers unwillingly, and having known 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


309 


that itself is unwillingly a slave to sin, might escape 
from the snare of the devil, seeking the mercy of God 
which is ready to receive those who are lawfully 
penitent.’ 

“ Theodoret , on the seventh chapter of Romans, 
says : £ But I am carnal. He introduces a man, be¬ 
fore receiving grace, beset by the motions and disorder 
of the mind. For he calls him carnal who has not yet 
obtained spiritual grace. “ For what I would, that do I 
not; but what I hate, that do I.” This is well accom¬ 
plished by the law, in that it teaches what is evil, and 
brings into the mind a hatred of it. But those expres¬ 
sions, “ I would,” and “ I hate,” signify not any neces¬ 
sity, but a weakness. For we do not sin under the 
impulse of necessity, or of any power, but being se¬ 
duced by pleasure we do those things which we abhor 
as sinful and flagitious.’ 

“ £ I delight in the law of God after the inward man.’ 
He calls the mind the inward man. 

“ £ But I see another law in my members, warring,’ 
&c. He calls sin the law of sin. But this performs 
its work when the bodily disturbances of the mind spring 
up, and the soul, on account of that sluggishness in 
which it has been involved from the beginning, cannot 
restrain them : but it has yielded its own liberty, and 
endures being a slave to them. Yet although it is a 
slave, it regards its servitude with hatred, and praises 
him who blames this servitude. When the apostle 
had discussed all these things, that he might show 
what we were before grace, and what after grace, and 
having assumed, as it were, the character of those who 
before grace are beset by sin, surrounded as in the 
midst of enemies, and forced into servitude and com¬ 
pelled to be a slave, and seeing no aid from without, 
he indeed groans and laments deeply: he shows that 


310 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


help cannot be obtained from the law, and cries out, 

* 0 wretched man,’ &c. 

“ On chap, viii: ‘ There is, therefore, now no con¬ 
demnation,’ &c. For now the disorders of the mind 
do not overcome us against our will, for we have re¬ 
ceived the grace of the divine Spirit.” 

“ ‘ For the law of the Spirit of life.’ As he styles sin 
the law of sin, so he calls the life-giving Spirit the law 
of the Spirit of life. He says, that its (the Spirit’s) 
grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, has given a twofold 
liberty to you. For not only has it broken the power of 
sin, but it has even destroyed the tyranny of death.” 

“ Macarius , Homily 1 :—‘Adam, transgressing the 
command of God, and obeying the wicked serpent, 
sold himself to the devil: and so that wicked one 
took possession of his soul, that noble creature which 
God made after his own image, as the apostle also 
says, “ Having spoiled principalities and powers, 
triumphing over them through the cross.” For on this 
account the Lord came, that he might expel them and 
recover his own habitation and his own temple, viz., 
man. Hence the soul is said to be a body of darkness 
and sin, as long as there are in it the shades of sin ; 
because there it lives in an evil world of darkness, 
and there it is held captive. As Paul also, speaking 
of the body of sin and death, says, “ that the body of 
sin might be destroyed.” And again, “ Who shall de¬ 
liver me from the body of this death ?” On the con¬ 
trary, the soul which has trusted in God, and been 
freed from sin, having been made dead to the life of 
darkness, and has received the light of the Holy Spirit 
as its life, afterward continues to live therein: because 
it is herein governed by divine light.’ 

“ Hence it is evident that Macarius understood this 
passage to refer to a man who was subject to the spirit 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


311 


of darkness, a slave of sin, a captive of Satan, who has 
not yet become dead to sin, not yet received the light 
of the Holy Spirit; that is, who is not yet born again 
of the Spirit of Christ. 

“ Damascenus , lib. iv, Orthodoxae Fidei, cap. 23, ex¬ 
plains this matter finely, so that it will not be tedious 
to give his opinion more extendedly in his own words, 
as they have been rendered into Latin by his trans¬ 
lator :— 

“ ‘ The law of God,’ he says, ‘coming to our mind, 
draws to itself and excites our conscience. Our con¬ 
science also is called the law of our mind. But the 
suggestion of the evil one, that is, the law of sin, also 
coming to the members of our flesh, by means of it 
obtains for itself admission to us: for we, voluntarily 
transgressing the law of God once, and admitting the 
suggestion of the evil one, give him an entrance, being 
made slaves by ourselves to sin: wherefore our body 
is readily drawn to it: therefore the odour and percep¬ 
tion of sin clinging to our bodies, that is, concupiscence 
and the lust of the body, is called the law of sin in our 
carnal members. Therefore the law of the mind, that 
is, the conscience, delights in the law of God, that is, 
in his command, toward which it indeed is well dis¬ 
posed. But the law of sin, that is, the suggestion 
through the law which is in the members, that is, 
through the lust of the body, its inclination and im¬ 
pulses, and through the irrational part of the soul, con¬ 
tends against the law of my mind, that is, the con¬ 
science, and brings me, consenting to the law of God, 
and not performing it, yet not desiring sin, into captivity, 
through the persuasive power of the desire and the 
concupiscence of the body, and causes that part of the 
soul which is brute and destitute of reason, as I have 
said, to wander, and persuades it to serve sin. “ For 


312 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


what the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of 
sinful flesh,” (for he assumed our flesh, but not our 
sin,) “ condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteous¬ 
ness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not 
after the flesh but after the Spirit.” For the Spirit 
strives against our weakness, and gives power to the law 
of the mind against the law which is in our members.’ 

“ Theophylact , on the seventh chapter to Romans. 
He says, ‘ I am carnalthat is, human nature univer¬ 
sally, both before the ordaining of the law, and during 
the continuance of the law, had the whole crowd of the 
desires collected around it. For we were not made 
mortal only by the transgression of Adam ; but our 
nature received depraved affections, being sold under 
sin, and plainly subject to the power and dominion of 
sin, so that it cannot raise up its head.” 

“And soon after: ‘Therefore the law could not in¬ 
deed cure this weakness, although it might suggest 
what should be done; but Christ, when he came, 
effected the cure.’ 

“ ‘ Therefore this is the design of the apostle in those 
things which he has said, and which he is about to say, 
to demonstrate that human nature has received in¬ 
curable wounds, and that it cannot be restored to health 
by any other, except by Christ only.’ 

“ And afterward: ‘ O wretched man,’ &c. The 
natural law could avail nothing, but the tyranny of sin 
was victorious. Whence, then, is there hope of sal¬ 
vation ?” 

“ ‘ I thank God through Jesus Christ.’ For he ef¬ 
fected that which the law could not. For he has freed 
me from the weakness of the body, inspiring it with 
strength, and affording comfort, so that it may no longer 
be oppressed by the tyranny of sin.” 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


313 


“ Ambrose, on the Epistle to the Romans, or some 
other who may be the author of those commentaries, or 
an interpolator on the seventh chapter. 4 To be sold 
under sin is to derive our origin from Adam who first 
sinned, and by our own fault to be made subject to 
sin; as Isaiah says, “For your iniquities have ye sold 
yourselves.” For Adam sold himself first, and by this 
means all his seed has become subject to sin. Where 
fore man is too weak to observe the precepts of the law, 
unless he be strengthened by divine aid: hence it is 
that he says, “ The law is spiritual, but I am carnal,” 
&c.; that is, the law is firm, and just, and blameless, 
but man is weak, and subject to the sin of his first 
parent, so that he cannot use his own power in obeying 
the law : so he must fly to the mercy of God, that he 
may escape the severity of the law, and, being deli¬ 
vered from his sins, for the future resist his enemy 
through the favour of God.’ ” 

“ Soon after: 4 But how to perform that which is 
good I find not.’ Therefore that which is commanded 
by the law pleases him, and there is the desire of doing 
it, but power and ability to perform is wanting; since 
he is so oppressed by the power of sin, that he cannot 
go whither he wishes, nor can he oppose, since another 
is master of his powers.” 

“ Soon after: ‘ The apostle, that he may set forth 
the grace of God, explains from how great evils he has 
delivered man ; that he might show what misery he 
has derived from Adam, and what benefits he whom 
the law could not aid has obtained through Christ. 
Let the whole passage be examined.’ 

“ Jerome , on the ninth chapter of Daniel, on those 
words, 4 We have sinned,’ &c.:— 4 And surely the three 
youths had not transgressed, and they were not of such 
an age when they were carried away into Babylon, that 


314 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


they should be punished for their own sins. Therefore 
these spoke in the character of the people, as that pas¬ 
sage of the apostle is to be understood, “For what I 
would, that do not I,” &c.’ 

“ But let us come to Augustine , and see what he 
thought of this passage, since my opinion is loaded 
and pressed down by the weight of his authority. Thus 
then he speaks, in his 4 Exposition of certain proposi¬ 
tions in the Epistle to the Romans —‘ “ If, then, I do 
that which I would not, I consent unto the law, that 
it is good.” The law is indeed defended from all 
accusation: but care must be taken lest any one 
may think that in these words the free choice of our 
will is taken away, for it is not so. For here a man 
is described as placed under the law, before receiving 
grace.’ 

“ Shortly after: 4 “ I see another law in my mem¬ 
bers,” &c. He speaks of the law of sin, by which 
every one through the habits of the flesh is firmly 
bound. He says that this is at variance with the law 
of his mind, and that it brings him into captivity to 
the law of sin. Wherefore the man who is not yet 
under grace is understood to be described. For if the 
carnal habits only opposed, and did not lead into cap¬ 
tivity, there would be no condemnation. For in this 
there is condemnation, that we comply with and serve 
our depraved carnal desires. But if such desires do 
exist, and are not entirely wanting, and yet we do not 
obey them, we are not in captivity, and we are now 
under grace, of which he speaks when he exclaims 
concerning the help of his deliverer, that he could 
through the grace of love do that which fear through 
the law could not effect. For he cries out, 44 0 wretch¬ 
ed man,” &c.; and adds, 44 1 thank God through Jesus 
Christ our Lord.” Then he begins to describe a man 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


315 


placed under grace, which is the third degree of those 
four which we have distinguished.’ 

“To Simplicianus, bishop of the church of Milan, 
book i.:—‘ But yet, not satisfied with past investiga¬ 
tion and explanation, I have examined more cautiously 
and attentively those same words of the apostle, and 
the tenor of his ideas, (namely, the seventh chapter to 
Romans,^ lest I might have passed too carelessly over 
any thing in it. For you would not think that those 
passages had been examined thoroughly, if the under¬ 
standing of them should be easy and expeditious. For 
at first you wished us to explain the disputed question 
in reference to that passage where it is written, “ What 
shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid,” to the 
place where he says, “ I find then a la\v, that when I 
would do good,” &c.; and, 1 believe, even to that, “ O 
wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me from 
the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus 
Christ our Lord.” In this place the apostle seems to 
me to have transformed himself to a man placed under 
the law, whose words he speaks in accordance with 
his character.’ ” 

“ Hence it is evident, in the first place, that the 
church at that time had prescribed nothing definitely 
concerning the sense of that passage : for Simplicianus, 
a bishop, and indeed in the very church in which Am¬ 
brose had before been bishop, would not have asked 
the opinion of Augustine, but it would have been ne¬ 
cessary to understand the passage according to the 
prescribed interpretation. Secondly. That Augustine, 
after having weighed the matter diligently, says that 
the passage is to be understood of an individual under 
the law. 

“ In the same book :— 1 1,’ he says, ‘ was alive with¬ 
out the law once;’ where he shows that he does not 


316 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


speak in his own person particularly, but generally in 
the character of the old man. 

“ In the same :—‘ Then he subjoins the reason why 
it is so : “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I 
am carnal.” In this he sufficiently shows that the law 
could not be fulfilled except by the spiritual, who 
such do not become except by grace.’ 

“ And soon after:— £ When he says, “ But I am car¬ 
nal,” he explains also in what sense he is carnal. For 
in a certain sense even those are called carnal who are 
placed under grace, being now redeemed by the blood 
of Christ, and born again through faith; to whom the 
same apostle says, 1 Cor. iii, “ And I, brethren, could 
not speak unto you as unto spiritual,” &c. But he who 
is not yet un<jer grace, but under the law, is carnal 
in such a sense that he is not yet born again from sin, 
but is sold under the law by sin, since the price of 
deadly pleasure includes that sweetness by which he 
is deceived and delights to do contrary to the law, 
while, as it is less lawful, so much the more is it 
pleasing, &c. And he afterward consents to the law 
of God, not in that he does what it prohibits, but in 
that he does what he would not do. For he -is over¬ 
come, not being as yet delivered by grace, although 
now by the law he both knew that he did wrong and 
was unwilling to do it. But in reference to what fol¬ 
lows, where he says, “ Now then it is no more I that do 
it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” He does not speak thus 
because he does not consent to the commission of sin, 
although he consents to the law to the condemnation of 
this act. But he speaks as yet in the character of a man 
placed under the law, and not yet under grace ; of one 
who is immediately drawn away to doing wrong by con¬ 
cupiscence ruling over him, and by the sweetness of 
forbidden sin deceiving him, although a knowledge of 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION 


317 


the law partly condemns this course. But, moreover, 
he says, “ It is not I that do it,” because being over¬ 
come he acts ; for desire, to which, overcoming him, he 
yields, effects this. But that he may not be given 
up, and that the mind of the man may be more strong 
against desire, is the work of grace, of which he is 
about afterward to speak. Examine also the following 
remarks.’ 

“ Soon after: * “ To will is present with me.” He 
said this in reference to the facility of doing it. For 
what is more easy for a man placed under the law than 
to desire the good and to do the evil,’ &c.” 

“In the same place : 4 But all this is said thus, that 
it may be shown that the captive must not presume 
on his own strength. Here he accused the Jews as 
proudly boasting of the deeds of the law, when they 
were carried away by their lust to committing what¬ 
ever was unlawful, while the law of which they boasted 
said, “ Thou shalt not covet.” Therefore the man thus 
overcome must speak humbly; condemned, a captive, 
and by no means a victor when the law was made 
known, but rather a transgressor, he must humbly ex¬ 
claim, “O wretched man that I am !” &c.’” 

Augustine, however, in his controversy with Pela- 
gius, found it convenient to abandon these views, 
clearly and strongly as they are here maintained, and 
Arminius proceeds to refute his arguments on the other 
side. And besides the fathers, he quotes Bede, S. 
Paulinus, Nicholas de Lyra, Cardinal Hugo, Thomas 
Aquinas, Haimo, Bruno, Erasmus, Bucer, and Wolf¬ 
gang Musculus, as advocating the same opinions. 

Dr. Macknight on Rom. vii, 15, says:— 

“ They who think the apostle is here describing his 
own case, and the cases of othej regenerated persons, 
should consider that he does not speak of single in- 


318 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


stances of omission of duty, and commission of sin; 
for the words which he uses, naregya^oiiai ttqclcfog) 
note*), all denote a continuance , or habit of acting. 
Now how such a habit of doing evil, and neglecting 
good, can be attributed to any regenerated person, and 
especially to the apostle Paul, who, before this Epistle 
to the Romans was written, told the Thessalonians, 
‘Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and 
justly, and unblameably, we behaved among you, 

I confess I do not comprehend.” 

Rosenmuller’s views are as follows :— 

“ Eyo> de oapiuKog sl/xl.] I indeed am weak, carried 
away by vile affections ; or I am given up to them. 
Ey«, again the apostle speaks in his own person con¬ 
cerning any one not a Christian, who may be either a 
Jew or a heathen. I wonder that Coppius has assented 
to the opinion of those who think that Paul said this 
concerning himself, and also concerning all Christians. 
This seems evidently contrary not only to all the words 
immediately following, but also to the entire design of 
the apostle, and the whole thread of his discourse. 
Indeed he wishes to show that no man can easily be 
amended in heart by the law alone; that the Mosaic 
law also wants the power to renew the heart, and that 
a man long accustomed to sin labours under such 
infirmity of mind, that when he may most wish and 
desire to follow the law, he finds himself unequal to 
this task; and he experiences so great and continual a 
contest between the animal and rational propensity, 
that he does that which he does not approve and is 
unwilling to do, and cannot accomplish that which he 
approves and desires to follow; but there is in the 
Christian religion this power of amending the minds 
of men, which alone Js able to imbue one with the 
strength necessary to holy living. See particularly 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


319 


chap, viii, verses 2, 3, where the apostle teaches ex¬ 
pressly that the vofiog rov Trvevfjbarog rrjg supplies 
that which neither the law of Moses nor any other law 
ever yet furnished or can furnish.” 

Dr. Bloomfield, on Rom. vii, 14, says:— 

“ In the interpretation of these words commentators 
differ. Augustine, and most of the early modern ones, 
(especially those of the Calvinistic school,) maintain 
that the apostle here speaks of himself , and of regene¬ 
rate Christians , and means this as the language of 
penitent remorse. But after all that has been urged in 
favour of this interpretation by Doddridge, Teller, and 
especially by Carpzov, (to whose note I refer the 
reader,) it may justly be considered as untenable.*’ 

Professor Stuart, in his learned commentary upon 
this much-contested passage, supposes “ the apostle to 
be here speaking of himself when in a legal state , or 
under the law, and before he was united to Christ.” 
And he says, “ The most ancient fathers of the church, 
without a dissenting voice, so far as we have any means 
of ascertaining their views, were united in the belief, 
that an uwegenerate, unsanctified person is described 
in Rom. vii, 5-25. So Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, 
and Theodoret. In this state the views of the church 
remained down to the time of Augustine.” 

After giving the names of the principal commentators 
who follow Augustine, he proceeds :—“ On the other 
hand, Jbesides all the ancient Greek, and some of the 
Latin fathers, there are many distinguished men who 
have defended the sentiment which has been above 
exhibited. Such are, Erasmus, Raphel, Episcopius, 
Limborch, Turretine, Le Clerc, Heumann, Bucer, 
Schomer, Franke, G. Arnold, Bengel, Rienhard, 

* See Bloomfield’s Critical Digest., also his Greek Testament wiit 
English notes. 


320 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Storr, Flatt, Knapp, Tholuck, and, as far as I know, 
all the evangelical commentators of the present time 
on the continent of Europe. Most of the English 
Episcopal Church, also, for many years, and not a 
few of the Scotch, Dutch, and English Presbyterian 
and Congregational divines, have adopted the same 
interpretation. I cannot but believe, that the time is 
not far distant when there will be but one opinion 
among intelligent Christians about the passage in 
question; as there was but one before the dispute of 
Augustine with Pelagius. In this respect there is 
ground of trust, that the ancient and modern churches 
will yet fully harmonize.” For the argument at length 
see “ Stuart’s Commentary” in loc. 

I need not here insert the expositions and arguments 
of Messrs. Wesley and Fletcher, and the Wesleyan 
commentators. These are so generally read, that a 
simple reference to them will be sufficient.* 

I have now considered the leading passages of Scrip¬ 
ture which are adduced in proof of the necessary con¬ 
tinuance of indwelling sin through life. I now leave 
it to the candid to determine whether these scriptures 
afford that doctrine the smallest support. Can any 
one go so far as to allege that in these proof-texts 
there is sufficient evidence to make the doctrine which 
they are brought to prove an article of faith, and to 
brand the opposite view as heresy ? So far as this many 
have gone; and the position is maintained by distin¬ 
guished and learned ministers at the present day. How 
any right-minded Christian divine can stake so much 
upon a theory so slenderly sustained is indeed strange, 
and must be left without judgment upon our part. But 

* Those who may wish to consult these authorities, I would refer 
to Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament, Fletcher’s Last Check to 
Antinomianism, Clarke’s, Coke’s, and Benson’s Commentaries. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


321 


as for us, let us make our appeal to the law and the 
testimony, and then abide the result. If we hold no 
doctrine which is condemned by Christ or his holy 
apostles, we may well forego the good opinion of men 
who judge of our doctrinal views a priori, without law 
or evidence. We must not, however, treat them un¬ 
charitably. They think themselves right. What they 
allege in favour of their views looks to them like 
proof, and all we can adduce on the other hand has 
with them no weight. Well, here we must rest the 
matter until God shall give more light, or perhaps 
until the light of eternity, which will correct all errors, 
shall dawn upon the darkened understanding. 


LECTURE XV. 

PERIOD WHEN BELIEVERS MAY BE ENTIRELY SANCTIFIED 
-ERRORS CONCERNING. 

“ Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ? God forbid! 
How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein V* Rom. 
vi, 1, 2. 

I shall next proceed to an examination of opposing 
theories. Our opponents do not merely deny the 
attainableness of entire sanctification in this life, but, 
on the other hand, maintain that sin cannot be wholly 
removed until death comes in to complete the work of 
its destruction. As we have seen, the Rev. Dr. Snod¬ 
grass maintains “that the dissolution of the body, as 
followed by its resurrection, is one of the appointed 
means of sanctification.” 

So those who oppose us have a theory to maintain. 

And after answering the leading objections which thev 

21 



322 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


have seen proper to urge against us, it will be in 
place to carry the war into theiT camp. I shall now 
proceed to offer reasons against this notion of the 
necessary continuance of indwelling sin until death. 
There will be no chance here with the class of theo¬ 
logians who maintain the proposition I now oppose, 
for a play upon the word necessary. We agree, I 
presume, in the sense in which the possibility or im¬ 
possibility , in question, is to be understood. Calvin 
says, “ I call that impossible which has never happened 
yet , and tohich is prevented by the ordination and 
decree of God from ever happening in the future .” 
And Dr. Snodgrass says :—“ As to the meaning of the 
word attainable, when applied to the state described 
in the preceding remarks, we have no other purpose 
than to use it in its most obvious and popular sense— 
as importing the practicability of the thing to which it 
refers. An attainable thing is something the attain¬ 
ment of which is practicable ; an unattainable thing is 
something the attainment of which is not practicable.”* 
I understand, then, Calvin and Dr. Snodgrass to agree 
in the doctrine that entire sanctification in this life is 
“ impossible,” being “ prevented by the ordination and 
decree of God,” “ is something the attainment of which 
is impracticable,” and this I understand logically to 
imply that the existence of sin in the regenerate until 
death is a necessary consequence of a divine arrange¬ 
ment. The main principle then being thus understood, 
I object to it for the following reasons :— 

1. It makes the continuance of sin in believers until 
death their misfortune, and not their fault. 

I do not admit, nor do I see how any one can ration¬ 
ally assert, that just blame can be attached to a moral 
agent for not attaining what is “ impracticable—impos- 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 29. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


323 


sible—prevented by the ordination and decree of God.” 
All the explanations offered here, either by the old 
school or the new school Calvinists, are lost upon me, 
for I cannot feel their force. I can see no grounds of 
moral justice upon which I am blameworthy for the 
continuance of sin in my heart upon this principle. If 
it is in accordance with a divine arrangement, for the 
purpose of securing some good end, that believers are 
through life to be annoyed by their corruptions, who is 
in fault if those corruptions are not wholly eradicated ? 
The argument is plain, and can scarcely be improved 
by illustration. And though to our opponents it may 
look like a mere bubble, it will probably continue to 
appear to us like an immoveable rock. 

The simple fact, then, that all are conscious their 
inward corruptions, in whole and in part, all of them, 
are wrong, entirely unnecessary, and offensive to God, 
is sufficient to show the radical error of the position I 
oppose. For who that believes that the destruction 
of his inward corruptions is “prevented by the decree 
of God,” until “the dissolution of the body,” which, in 
the wisdom of God, is constituted “ one of the ap¬ 
pointed means of sanctification,” can feel it very wrong 
to suffer on under the weight of “the body of sin” 
“all the days of his appointed time until his change 
come ?” Who will condemn himself for the continued 
molestations of the brood of vipers, which God has 
determined to leave to nestle in his heart until the 
appointed remedy arrives? From this argument we 
are naturally led on to another, which grows out of it. 

2. The doctrine that entire sanctification is unattain¬ 
able in this life effectually nourishes spiritual sloth. 

Who will ever make a serious effort to get rid of a 
necessary evil ? Hooker, with an evidence of philo¬ 
sophical truth that no man can gainsay or doubt, savs : 


324 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“ The will, notwithstanding, doth not incline to have 
or do that which reason teacheth to be good, unless 
the same do also teach it to be possible. For albeit 
the appetite, being more general, may wish any thing 
which seemeth good, be it never so impossible ; yet for 
such things, the reasonable will of man doth never 
seek. Let reason teach impossibility in any thing, and 
the will of man doth let it go ; a thing impossible it doth 
not affect, the impossibility thereof being manifest.”* 
Can Dr. Snodgrass rationally seek entire sanctifica¬ 
tion in this life ? Can he urge others to seek it ? Can 
he put forth a single voluntary effort to shake off the 
body of sin ? I see not how he can. Will he not 
naturally practise according to the views of Cart¬ 
wright, the great father of the Nonconformists, and 
opponent of Whitgift, who says, “We may not pray in 
this life to be free from all sin, because we must al¬ 
ways pray, 4 Forgive us our sins V ” And Witsius, the 
great Calvinistic reformer, who says: “ Seeing God 
has expressly declared that he does not give his people 
absolute perfection in this life, it is the duty of all to 
acquiesce in this dispensation of the divine will, nor 
are they allowed to beg of God to grant them that per 
fection here, which they know he has not appointed for 
this, but for the other life.”f 

These are the logical results and practical workings 
of the doctrine here opposed. And what other results 
can rationally be expected in any instance ? Who can 
pray for, or use any efforts to obtain, what he firmly 
believes to be unattainable ? or, which amounts to the 
same thing, seek now what God “ has not appointed 
for this life, but for the other ?” 

Perhaps our opponents will say, it is our duty to 

* Ecclesiastical Polity, book i, chap. 7. 

t Economy of the Covenants, vol. ii, p. 61. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTI «N. 


325 


oppose sin even though it may not be totally destroyed 
in this life : we must go on conquering and subduing 
it as far as is practicable, and expect the final triumph 
after death : that this view presents sufficient motives 
for action. 

But this does not neutralize our argument, for still 
it remains a fact, according to the theory here opposed, 
that though sin may be kept under, it cannot be over¬ 
come until death. Now how would this principle 
operate in other things ? Apply it to the case of the 
intemperate. Tell them that temperance is a gradual 
work, that never can be completed in this life—that the 
intemperate cannot be perfectly reformed so long as 
they live : they may get the better of their habits, and it 
is their duty to reform, but that death “ is one of the ap¬ 
pointed means” of cure, and consequently it is vain for 
any one to expect to become perfectly temperate in this 
life :—how many drunkards would be reformed upon 
this plan ? What effect would this doctrine produce 
upon the great temperance reform now so gloriously 
progressing ? I can anticipate the answer. And I am 
aware that no valid reason can be given why the doc¬ 
trine I here oppose should not have the same paralyzing 
effect upon the soul of the Christian that the gradual 
plan, as above stated, would have upon the efforts of 
the intemperate to reform. It may be said the cases 
are not parallel. But I see not in what respects, so 
far as the points in question are concerned, the parallel 
is not perfect; nor why the gradualist is not in the 
one case as much as in the other liable to the charge 
of cutting the sinews of exertion. 

3. The doctrine that death “ is one of the appointed 
means of sanctification,” is attributing to death a work 
which, in the word of God, is always attributed to other 
instrumentalities, but never to death. 


32fl 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


We read of “being sanctified by the Holy Ghost,*' 
Rom. xv, 16 ; 1 Pet. i, 2,—of being sanctified “ through 
the truth,” John xvii, 17, 19,—of being sanctified “by 
the blood of the covenant,” Heb. x, 29,—and “the 
blood of Christ,” Heb. ix, 14. See also 1 John i, 7. 
Of being sanctified “ by faith,” Acts xv, 9, and xxvi, 18. 
But where do we read of being sanctified by death ? 
If the hypothesis I oppose were true, should we not 
expect to find the work of sanctification, or at least the 
completion of it, somewhere in the Bible predicated 
of death as its instrumental cause, in language some¬ 
what similar to that which is employed in relation to 
the truth, the word, faith, &c. ? But where is that lan¬ 
guage to be found ? Not in the Eib ] e : and I would 
that I could say, Nor in the writings of any respectable 
Christian author; but alas ! this I have not the happi¬ 
ness of being able to say. 

4. It is adding a qualification to the Scripture doc¬ 
trine of sanctification, not only over and above any 
thing we have in the Bible upon the subject, but alto¬ 
gether contrary to the whole tenor of God’s word. 

The word of God says, “ Now is the accepted time, 
now is the day of salvation.” The command, “ Be ye 
holy,” is now urged. The duty of seeking entire sanc¬ 
tification is urged as of present obligation. “Go on 
to perfection“ Let us cleanse ourselves from all 
filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in 
the fear of God.” Now where is the qualification of 
our opponents authorized ? Where is it said, Neverthe¬ 
less , these commands and exhortations cannot be fully 
carried out until the dissolution of the body ? Would 
not this give a new feature to the Christian system ? 
Would it not contradict its entire spirit and sense upon 
the subject of the necessary preparation for heaven ? 
So it seems to me ; and of course the theory I oppose 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


327 


appears to me to be “another gospel”—a doctrine 
which I am bound not only not to receive, but to op¬ 
pose to the utmost of my limited capacity. 

5. The doctrine that “the dissolution of the body is 
one of the appointed means of sanctification” is dis¬ 
honourable to Christ. 

Christ came “to abolish death,”—“ that through 
death he might destroy him that had the power of 
death, that is, the devil,”.2 Tim. i, 10; Heb. ii, 14. 
And it is said, “ The last enemy that shall be destroyed 
is death,” 1 Cor. xv, 26. And now shall death—igno¬ 
ble death—said to be under the power of the devil , and 
called “ the last enemy,” come to the Saviour’s help ? 
Must this foe to man be the instrument of accomplish¬ 
ing the highest purposes of redeeming mercy ? Will all 
other instrumentality come short of the consummation 
of the great work of human emancipation from the cor¬ 
ruptions of sin ? And does the peculiar honour of finally 
triumphing over the power of sin belong to death ? 
The saints in heaven are represented as celebrating 
the blood of Christ as the instrument of their redemp¬ 
tion, (Rev. v, 9,) but seem not to know that death acted 
a prominent part in the business. And I have ni> 
doubt that if our opponents ever get to heaven, and I 
charitably hope they will, they will have forgotten their 
present theory, and will join in the same song, of as¬ 
cribing their salvation to the blood of Christ alone. 
Christ, the great Captain of our salvation, needs not 
death to help him to accomplish his work. He will de¬ 
stroy sin, death, and the devil, and triumph by his own 
power over every foe. He will “ deliver those who, 
through fear of death, were all their life time subject 
to bondage,” by his grace and Spirit, through the word 
of his truth, without dependance upon his subjugated 
foe for the consummation of the purposes of his mercy. 


328 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


6. The doctrine of the necessary continuance of sm 
until death, and that death is the means of the final 
extirpation of sin from the soul of the believer, sup¬ 
poses a connection between sin and the body which is 
wholly unauthorized either by Scripture or sound phi¬ 
losophy. 

I know not upon what approved system of physics or 
psychology sin is made to hold such a connection with 
the body that it cannot be separated from the soul until 
the body is dissolved by death. I have always been 
accustomed to suppose that sin was in the soul exclu¬ 
sively. But let us hear the statement of the opposite 
view from the learned Dr. Snodgrass. He says,— 

“ The idea of a perfectly holy spirit remaining in 
connection with a corruptible body, would present an 
incongruity , to which no parallel could be found in 
any of the other arrangements or works of God. It is 
not only true that his plans are wise, but also that their 
wisdom can be generally seen and appreciated by the 
candid and careful observer. But who could regard it 
as fit or reasonable, that, after the souls of believers 
are delivered from the last taint of corruption, they 
should still be confined to such a body as this ? As an 
apostle describes it, it is a ‘ vile ’ body—a body pos¬ 
sessing many properties, in view of which we have 
reason to be humbled—a body distinguished by great 
infirmity and weakness—easily brought into a state of 
languor and fatigue—subject to innumerable ills and 
distresses—furnishing many occasions of temptation to 
sin, and acting as a constant weight upon the upward 
tendencies and movements of the soul.”* 

The confidence with which our author pronounces 
the case supposed of “ a perfectly holy spirit remaining 
in connection with a corruptible body” “ an incongrv- 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 90, 91. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


329 


ity” and decides what would be “ fit and reasonable” 
in the case, would seem to imply that the question is 
to turn, at least in some measure, upon our general 
notions of congruity and fitness, and that he at least is 
capable of judging of what would be congruous and fit 
in the premises. But though I am far from conceding 
that there is any thing incongruous in the supposition, 
every thing considered, yet I doubt whether this is the 
proper test of truth in cases of the class. There are 
many things clearly revealed in the word of God which 
appear incongruou's, “to which no parallel could be 
found in any of the other arrangements or works of 
God,” which we are still bound to receive as truths. 
This the learned author will scarcely question. 

But what incongruity is there in the conception of a 
being clad in the habiliments of mortality, and yet per¬ 
fectly conformed to the will of God ? Was there any 
such striking incongruity in the person and life of Je¬ 
sus Christ ? If so, I am not aware of it. And consider¬ 
ing the amplitude of the provisions of grace, and the 
power of that system of human restoration constituted 
by Christ, where is the incongruity in supposing the 
sufficiency of that system to give present and imme¬ 
diate deliverance from sin—to enable the believer to 
stand “ complete in all the will of God ?” Is not sin in 
a believer a most glaring incongruity ? So it appears 
to me. 

The force of the gentleman’s argument, however, 
seems to turn upon the infirmities, vileness, and cor¬ 
ruptibility of the body. I do not doubt that all this is 
the fruit of sin ; but that it necessarily implies the con 
tinuance of sin, inward or outward, I do doubt. “ As 
an apostle describes it,” (Phil, iii, 21,) he says, “It is 
a ‘ vile’ body.” This is true; but where is the evi¬ 
dence that the term vile implies moral defilement ? 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


330 

The word raTreiviooig, here rendered vile, according 
to Dr. Robinson, signifies “ a making low, humiliation, 
depression. In the New Testament, ‘the being brought 
low,’ low estate, humiliation.”* And he notes the fol¬ 
lowing places where the word occurs •—Luke i, 48 : 
ene(3 helper em ttjv raireiviOGiv rrjg dovhrjg avrov —“ Hath 
regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.” Acts viii, 
33 : ev rrj raneivooeL k. r. X. — “ In his humiliation his 
judgment was taken away,” &c. James i, 10: 6 dt 
nXovoLog ev rrj raTretvoMjei avrov —“ But the rich, in that 
he is made low.” In the Septuagint the word is used 
in the place of the Hebrew — lowness, a low place 

or condition; (see Psa.'cxxxvi, 2J;) in the common 
version rendered “ low estate and ^35,— affliction , 
oppression, Neh. ix, 9, rendered “ affliction.”! 

How, then, is it to the gentleman’s purpose at all 
that the apostle calls the body vile, that is, low, humble, 
afflicted, &c. ? Does that prove at all that the soul, 
so long as it is associated with the body, must be the 
seat of sinful affections ? Not that I can see. All the 
vileness here attributed to the body no more makes for 
the doctrine of the necessary continuance of sin in the 
soul until death, than it proves that the Saviour was a 
sinner because it is said, “ in his humiliation (ranet- 
v(x)oei, lowliness, or vileness if you please) his judg¬ 
ment was taken away.” 

It will be proper here to notice the manner in which 
our author meets the objection to his notions of “ sinful 
flesh,” which, I have already intimated, is founded upon 
the perfect purity of Christ. 

“ If it should occur here, in the form of an objection 
to the view just presented, that Jesus Christ was per- 

* See Greek and English Lexicon. 

+ See the Hebrew and Greek texts, and all the approved Hebrew 
and Greek Lexicons.. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


33! 


fectly holy, while he tabernacled in a human body, it 
is only necessary to say, that the cases are not paral 
iel; because his body was not polluted by sin. It was 
not sinful flesh, but only £ the likeness of sinful flesh/ 
in which he was made. God did not suffer his ‘ Holy 
One to see corruption/ He assumed our nature, as 
far as this could be done, ‘ without sinand, that a 
difference might exist between his nature and ours, in 
respect to sin, he was not the offspring of man by ordi¬ 
nary generation. The circumstances attending his in¬ 
troduction into the world were peculiar. He came on 
a special visitation of grace and good-will to men; and 
he came in such a way, as to bear their griefs and carry 
their sorrows, without participating, personally, in any 
of their corruptions, either in body or mind.”* 

I admit there is not a perfect parallel between Christ 
and the holiest man that ever lived. Nor is this at all 
necessary to the argument. All that is necessary is 
to show that Christ was man—that he possessed a 
material, mortal, raneivcdcng, vile body, and was yet 
ivithout sin. But the learned doctor says, “ It was not 
sinful flesh, but only ‘ the likeness of sinful flesh/ in 
which he was made.” There is something a little too 
fanciful in this exposition, and I am not at all certain I 
understand it. I suppose Dr. S. does not intend, with 
certain ancient heretics, to deny that Christ had a pro¬ 
per human body: and yet I scarcely know what else 
he can mean. I can scarcely conceive that he has 
such an idea of the sinfulness of human flesh as would 
make sin an adjunct of the material part of man in the 
abstract, or in the concrete. By “ sinful flesh” I un¬ 
derstand human flesh, associated as it is with a fallen 
spiritual nature ; and by God’s sending his Son “ in the 

* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 91, 92. 


332 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


likeness of sinful flesh,” simply that he took upon him 
a proper human body. 

Professor Stuart’s note upon this clause is just and 
rational:—“ God sending his own Son in the likeness 
of sinful flesh —That is, God, sending his Son, clothed 
with a body like that of corrupt and sinful men ; that 
is, with a fleshly or corporeal nature like theirs.”* 

But, lest the Andover professor should be a little too 
new-fangled to have much weight with Dr. S., I will 
give him authority that he will respect. The note of 
the Westminster divines upon this passage is as fol¬ 
lows :—“ £ In the likeness of sinful flesK —Gr., flesh 
of sin. Christ took our nature upon him with all our 
natural affections; yet without sin: and therefore the 
apostle here saith, God sent his Son in the likeness of 
sinful flesh, not in the likeness of flesh, as if he had 
not taken true flesh upon him; but in the similitude 
of sinful flesh” f 

Dr. S. says truly that the body of Christ “ was not 
polluted by sin.” But was it not truly a mortal, cor¬ 
ruptible body ? God not suffering “ his Holy One to 
see corruption” is no proof to the contrary of this ; but 
does rather imply it. For the resurrection and immor¬ 
tality of Christ’s body is here ascribed to an extraordi¬ 
nary effort of divine power. 

What, then, is the result of this investigation ? Has 
any evidence been adduced that sin is so connected 
with our physical constitution, that we cannot get rid 
of it but by the aid of death ? Is there any proof that 
sin is in any other way connected with the body than 
as the body is the instrument of the soul ? Is the weak¬ 
ness and degradation of the body through sin so united 


* Commentary on the place. 
+ Annotations on the place. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


333 


or identified with its constituent elements that the body- 
must be dissolved by death and resumed in the resur¬ 
rection, before the soul can be entirely sanctified ? Let 
those who can take the affirmative of these questions 
go on and swallow without hesitation all the dogmas 
of Romanism. The theory is wholly unsupported 
either by Scripture, reason, or common sense. 

I am aware that a portion of those who oppose the 
doctrine of Christian perfection do not go the whole 
length with Dr. Snodgrass, though, from the sanction 
of the “ Presbyterian Board of Publication,” I fear his 
views are but too extensively received. Some there 
are, however, who will give death no part in the great 
work of sanctification, who still think that God’s ap¬ 
pointed time for the entire sanctification of his people 
is just before death , or at the moment the soul leaves 
the body. This view is not quite so exceptionable as 
that which I have endeavoured to refute, but is far 
from being authorized by Scripture. The following 
refutation of it by the able pen of Mr. Richard Wat 
son, as it is perfectly conclusive, and as it gives us his 
views upon the general subject, will answer a better 
purpose than any thing I could say:— 

“ The attainableness of such a state is not so much 
a matter of debate among Christians, as the time when 
we are authorized to expect it. For as it is an axiom 
of Christian doctrine, that ‘without holiness no man 
can see the Lord,’ and is equally clear that, if we would 
‘ be found of him in peace,' we must be found ‘ without 
spot , and blameless ,’ and that the church will be pre¬ 
sented by Christ to the Father without ‘fault,’ so it 
must be concluded, unless, on the one hand, we greatly 
pervert the sense of these passages, or, on the other, 
admit the doctrine of purgatory, or some intermediate 
purifying institution, that the entire sanctification of the 


334 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


soul, and its complete renewal in holiness, must take 
place in this world. 

“ While this is generally acknowledged, however, 
among spiritual Christians, it has been warmly con¬ 
tended by many, that the final stroke which destroys 
our natural corruption is only given at death; and that 
the soul, when separated from the body, and not before, 
is capable of that immaculate purity which these pas¬ 
sages, doubtless, exhibit to our hope. 

“ If this view can be refuted, then it must follow, 
unless a purgatory of some description be allowed after 
death, that the entire sanctification of believers, at any 
time previous to their dissolution, and in the full sense 
of these evangelic promises, is attainable. 

“To the opinion in question, then, there appear to 
be the following fatal objections :— 

“ 1. That we nowhere find the promises of entire 
sanctification restricted to the article of death, either 
expressly, or in fair inference from any passage of 
Holy Scripture. 

“ 2. That we nowhere find the circumstance of the 
soul’s union with the body represented as a necessary 
obstacle to its entire sanctification. 

“ The principal passage which has been urged in 
proof of this from the New Testament, is that part of 
the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in 
which St. Paul, speaking in the first person of the 
bondage of the flesh, has been supposed to describe 
his state, as a believer in Christ. But whether he 
speaks of himself, or describes the state of others, in 
a supposed case, given for the sake of more vivid re¬ 
presentation in the first person, which is much more 
probable, he is clearly speaking of a person who .had 
once sought justification by the works of the law, but 
who was then convinced, by the force of a spiritual 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


335 


apprehension, of the extent of the requirements of that 
law, and by constant failures in his attempts to keep it 
perfectly, that he was in bondage to his corrupt nature, 
and could only be delivered from this thraldom by the 
interposition of another. For, not to urge that his 
strong expressions of being ‘ carnal,’ ‘ sold under sin,’ 
and doing always ‘ the things which he would not,’ are 
utterly inconsistent with that moral state of believers 
in Christ which he describes in the next chapter ; and, 
especially, that he there declares that such as are in 
Christ Jesus ‘walk not after the flesh, but after the 
Spirit;’ the seventh chapter itself contains decisive 
evidence against the inference which the advocates of 
the necessary continuance of sin till death have drawn 
from it. The apostle declares the person whose case 
he describes, to be under the law , and not in a state 
of deliverance by Christ; and then he represents him, 
not only as despairing of self-deliverance, and as pray¬ 
ing for the interposition of a sufficiently powerful deli¬ 
verer, but as thanking God that the very deliverance 
for which he groans is appointed to be administered to 
him by Jesus Christ. ‘ Who shall deliver me from the 
body of this death ? I thank God through Jesus Christ 
our Lord.’ 

“ This is also so fully confirmed by what the apostle 
had said in the preceding chapter, where he unques¬ 
tionably describes the moral state of true believers, 
that nothing is more surprising than that so perverted 
a comment upon the seventh chapter as that to which 
we have adverted should have been adopted or perse¬ 
vered in. ‘ What shall we say, then ? Shall we con¬ 
tinue in sin, that grace may abound ? God forbid ! 
How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any longer 
therein ? Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 


336 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 
into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted 
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also 
in the likeness of his resurrection ; knowing this, that 
our old man is crucified with him, that the body of 
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should 
not serve sin; for he that is dead is freed from sin.’ 
So clearly does the apostle show, that he who is bound 
to the ‘body of death,’ as mentioned in the seventh 
chapter, is not in the state of a believer; and that he 
who has a true faith in Christ, ‘ is freed from sin.’ 

“ It is somewhat singular that the divines of the 
Calvinistic school should be almost uniformly the zea¬ 
lous advocates of the doctrine of the continuance of 
indwelling sin till death; but it is but justice to say, 
that several of them have as zealously denied that the 
apostle, in the seventh chapter of the Romans, describes 
the state of one who is justified by faith in Christ, and 
very properly consider the case there spoken of as that 
of one struggling in legal bondage, and brought to 
that point of self-despair, and of conviction of sin and 
helplessness, which must always precede an entire 
trust in the merits of Christ’s death, and the power of 
his salvation. 

“ 3. The doctrine before us is disproved by those 
passages of Scripture which connect our entire sancti¬ 
fication with subsequent habits and acts, to be exhibited 
in the conduct of believers before death. So in the 
quotation from Romans vi, just given,—‘ Knowing this, 
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
we should not serve sin.’ So the exhortation in 2 Cor. 
vii, 1, also given above, refers to the present life, and 
not to the future hour of our dissolution: and in 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


337 


1 Thess. v, 23, the apostle first prays for the entire 
sanctification of the Thessalonians, and then for their 
preservation in that hallowed state, ‘ unto the coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ 

“ 4. It is disproved, also, by all those passages which 
require us to bring forth those graces and virtues which 
are usually called the fruits of the Spirit. That these 
are to be produced during our life, and to be displayed 
in our spirit and conduct, cannot be doubted; and we 
may then ask whether they are required of us in per¬ 
fection and maturity ? If so, in this degree of maturity 
and perfection, they necessarily suppose the entire 
sanctification of the soul from the opposite and antago¬ 
nist evils. Meekness, in its perfection, supposes the 
extinction of all sinful anger: perfect love to God sup¬ 
poses that no affection remains contrary to it; and so 
of every other perfect internal virtue. The inquiry, 
then, is reduced to this, whether these graces, in such 
perfection as to exclude the opposite corruptions of the 
heart, are of possible attainment ? If they are not, then 
we cannot love God with our whole hearts; then we 
must be sometimes sinfully angry: and how, in that 
case, are we to interpret that perfectness in these graces 
which God hath required of us, and promised to us, in 
the gospel ? For if the perfection meant (and let it be 
observed that this is a Scriptural term, and must mean 
something) be so comparative as that we may be some¬ 
times sinfully angry, and may sometimes divide our 
hearts between God and the creature, we may apply 
the same comparative sense of the term to good words 
and to good works, as well as to good affections. Thus, 
when the apostle prays for the Hebrews, ‘Now the 
God of peace, that brought again from the dead our 
Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through 
the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect 


338 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


in every good work , to do his will,’ we must understand 
this perfection of evangelical good works so that it shall 
sometimes give place to opposite evil works, just as 
good affections must necessarily sometimes give place 
to the opposite had affections. This view can scarcely 
be soberly entertained by any enlightened Christian; 
and it must, therefore, be concluded that the standard 
of our attainable Christian perfection, as to the affec 
tions, is a love of God so perfect as to 4 rule the heart, 
and exclude all rivalry, and a meekness so perfect as to 
cast out all sinful anger, and prevent its returnand 
that as to good works, the rule is, that we shall be so 
4 perfect in every good work’ as to 4 do the will of God’ 
habitually, fully, and constantly. If we fix the standard 
lower, we let in a license totally inconsistent with that 
Christian purity which is allowed by all to be attain¬ 
able ; and we make every man himself his own inter¬ 
preter of that comparative perfection which is often 
contended for as that only which is attainable. 

“ Some, it is true, admit the extent of the promises 
and the requirements of the gospel as we have stated 
them ; but they contend that this is the mark at which 
we are to aim, the standard toward which we are to 
aspire, though neither is attainable fully till death. But 
this view cannot be true as applied to sanctification , or 
deliverance from all inward and outward sin. That 
the degree of every virtue implanted by grace is not 
limited, but advances and grows in the living Christian 
throughout life, may be granted ; and through eternity, 
also: but to say that these virtues are not attainable, 
through the work of the Spirit, in that degree which 
shall destroy all opposite vice, is to say that God, under 
the gospel, requires us to be what we cannot be, either 
through want of efficacy in his grace, or from some- 
defect in its administration ; neither of which has any 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


339 


countenance from Scripture, nor is at all consistent 
with the terms in which the promises and exhortations 
of the gospel are expressed. It is also contradicted by 
our own consciousness, which charges our criminal 
neglects and failures upon ourselves, and not upon the 
grace of God, as though it were insufficient. Either 
the consciences of good men have in all ages been de¬ 
lusive and over-scrupulous, or this doctrine of the ne¬ 
cessary, though occasional, dominion of sin over us is 
false. 

“ 5. The doctrine of the necessary indwelling of sin 
in the soul till death, involves other antiscriptural con¬ 
sequences. It supposes that the seat of sin is in the 
flesh, and thus harmonizes with the pagan philosophy, 
which attributed all evil to matter. The doctrine of 
the Bible, on the contrary, is, that the seat of sin is in 
the soul; and it makes it one of the proofs of the fall 
and corruption of our spiritual nature, that we are in 
bondage to the appetites and motions of the flesh. 
Nor does the theory which places the necessity of sin¬ 
ning in the connection of the soul with the body, ac¬ 
count for the whole moral case of man. There are 
sins, as pride, covetousness, malice, and others, which 
are wholly spiritual ; and yet no exception is made in 
this doctrine of the necessary continuance of sin till 
death as to them. There is, surely, no need to wait 
for the separation of the soul from the body in order to 
be saved from evils which are the sole offspring of the 
spirit; and yet these are made as inevitable as the sins 
which more immediately connect themselves with the 
excitements of the animal nature. 

“ This doctrine supposes, too, that the flesh must 
necessarily not only lust against the Spirit, but in no 
small degree, and on many occasions, be the conqueror: 
whereas, we are commanded to ‘mortify the deeds of 


340 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the body;’ to * crucify ,’ that is, to put to death, ‘the 
flesh ;’ ‘ to put off the old man,’ which, in its full mean¬ 
ing, must import separation from sin in fact, as well as 
the renunciation of it in will; and ‘to put on the new 
man.’ Finally, the apostle expressly states, that though 
the flesh stands victoriously opposed to legal sanctifi¬ 
cation, it is not insuperable by evangelical holiness :— 
‘ For what the law could not do, in that it was weak 
through the flesh , God sending his own Son in the 
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in 
the flesh ; that the righteousness of the law might be 
fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after 
the Spirit,’ Rom. viii, 3, 4. So inconsistent with the 
declarations and promises of the gospel is the notion 
that, so long as we are in the body, ‘ the flesh’ must of 
necessity have at least the occasional dominion. 

“We conclude, therefore, as to the time of our com¬ 
plete sanctification, or, to use the phrase of the apostle 
Paul, ‘ the destruction of the body of sin,’ that it can 
neither be referred to the hour of death, nor placed 
subsequently to this present life. The attainment of 
perfect freedom from sin is one to which believers are 
called during the present life, and is necessary to that 
completeness of ‘ holiness,’ and of those active and 
passive graces of Christianity, by which they are called 
to glorify God in this world, and to edify mankind.”* 

For these reasons, we reject the doctrine of the ne 
cessary continuance of indwelling sin, either until after 
death , or up to the last moment of life. We urge the 
duty and privilege of holiness of heart and life now, at 
the present moment, and would look for it ourselves, 
and urge all Christian people to do the same. 

* Institutes, part ii, chap. 39. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


341 


LECTURE XYI. 

REGENERATION AND ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION NOT 
IDENTICAL. 

“ Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, 
perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 2 Cor. vii, 1. 

A theory as to the period of entire sanctification, which 
sprang up in the days of Mr. Wesley, and is held by 
some in this country, is of a tendency so injurious to the 
integrity of the great Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanc¬ 
tification, as to require particular consideration. The 
theory is, that the soul is entirely sanctified when it is 
justified; that regeneration , which takes place at the 
time of justification, is identical with entire sanctifica¬ 
tion. The first we hear of this doctrine is from the 
Moravians under Count Zinzendorf. Mr. Wesley, 
in his Journal, says:—“ My brother and I went to Mr. 
Molther again, and spent two hours in conversation with 
him. He now, also, explicitly affirms,—1. That there 
are no degrees in faith; that none has any faith who 
has ever any doubt or fear; and that none is justified 
till he has a clean heart, with the perpetual indwelling 
of Christ and of the Holy Ghost.”* When Mr. Wes¬ 
ley separated from the Moravians at “Fetter Lane,” 
he read a paper containing his reasons for so doing, 
which begins as follows:—“ About nine months ago 
some of you began to speak contrary to the doctrine 
we had till then received. The sum of what you 
assert is this:—1. That there is no such thing as weak 
faith: that there is no justifying faith when there is 
even any doubt or fear ; or when there is not, in the full 
sense, a new, a clean heart.”! In a conversation held 
between Mr. Wesley and Count Zinzendorf, the count 
makes the following statements:—“The moment he 
* Works, vol. iii, u. 182. + Ibid., p. 190. 


342 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


[a believer] is justified,-he is sanctified wholly.” “En¬ 
tire sanctification and justification are in the same in¬ 
stant, and neither is increased or diminished.” “ As 
soon as any one is justified, the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Spirit, dwell in his heart; and in that moment 
his heart is as pure as it ever will be.”* 

These positions Mr. Wesley places at the head of the 
catalogue of exceptions which he took to the Moravian 
brethren : and these exceptions constituted the reasons 
why he withdrew himself and his societies from all 
communion and fellowship with them. 

In 1763 this same error was embraced and propa¬ 
gated by Thomas Maxfield, and some other preachers 
in Mr. Wesley’s employ, which occasioned the prepa¬ 
ration and publication of the sermon entitled “ Sin in 
Believers.” On March 28th, of this year, Mr. Wesley 
says, “ I retired to Lewisham, and wrote the sermon 
on ‘ Sin in Believers,’ in order to remove a mistake 
which some were laboring to propagate—that there is 
no sin in any that are justified.”! Again he says, “ At 
every place I endeavored to settle the minds of the 
poor people, who had been not a little harassed by a 

new doctrine which honest Jonathan C-and his 

converts had industriously propagated among them— 
that there is no sin in believers; but the moment we 
believe, sin is destroyed, root and branch.”! 

These references clearly show the origin of the 
theory which identified, as to time, justification and 
entire sanctification; and nothing more is necessary to 
prove that our venerable founder had no fellowship 
with it whatever. But as this same error has recently 
made its appearance among us, it will be proper to give 
it a somewhat formal notice. 

1. The position that justification and entire sanctifi- 
* Works, vol iii, p. 222. t Works, vol. iv, p. 147. t Ibid., p, 152. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


343 


cation take place at one and the same time, and that 
regeneration and entire sanctification are identical, is 
clearly contrary to the position taken by our standard 
theologians. 

Mr. Wesley’s sermon on “ Sin in Believers,” a his¬ 
torical notice of which I have taken above, is a clear 
and conclusive argument upon the question, and con¬ 
tains a form 1 answer to most of the reasoning which 
is now employed by the supporters of the anti-Wes¬ 
leyan view The question as stated by him is this :— 
“ Is a justified or regenerate man freed from all sin as 
soon as he s justified ? Is there then no sin in his heart? 
No, ever > fter, unless he fall from grace.” 

He says :—“ We allow that the state of a justified 
person inexpressibly great and glorious. He is born 
again, not of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of the will 
of man, but of God.’ He is a child of God, a member 
of Christ, an heir of the kingdom of heaven. ‘The 
peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep- 
eth his heart and mind in Christ Jesus.’ His very 
body is a ‘ temple of the Holy Ghost,’ and a ‘habitation 
of God through the Spirit.’ He is ‘created anew in 
Christ Jesus he is washed , he is sanctified. His 
heart is purified by faith; he is cleansed ‘ from the cor¬ 
ruption that is in the world‘the love of God is shed 
abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is given 
unto him.’ And so long as he ‘ walketh in love,’ (which 
he may always do,) he worships God in spirit and in 
truth. He keepeth the commandments of God , and 
doeth those things that are pleasing in his sight; so 
exercising himself as to ‘ have a conscience void of of¬ 
fense toward God and toward manand he has power 
both over outward and inward sin, even from the mo¬ 
ment he is justified.”* 

* Works, vol. i, p. 109. 


344 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


This shows that though he does not consider a jus¬ 
tified state a state of freedom from all sin, yet it is a 
truly glorious and happy state, and one which renders 
those who live in it heirs of eternal glory through the 
merits of Jesus Christ. 

The following is a view of the principal arguments 
by which the theory in question is supported, and the 
answers which Mr. Wesley gives them :— 

“ ‘ But believers walk after the Spirit, (Rom. viii, 1,) 
and the Spirit of God dwells in them ; consequently 
they are delivered from the guilt, the power, or, in one 
word, the being of sin.’ 

“ These are coupled together, as if they were the 
same thing. But they are not the same thing. The 
guilt is one thing, the power another, and the being 
yet another. That believers are delivered from the 
guilt and power of sin we allow; that they are deli¬ 
vered from the being of it we deny. Nor does it in any 
wise follow from these texts. A man may have the 
Spirit of God dwelling in him, and may ‘walk after the 
Spirit,’ though he still feels ‘ the flesh lusting against 
the Spirit.’ 

“‘But the “church is the body of Christ,” Col. i, 24: 
this implies that its members are washed from all filthi¬ 
ness ; otherwise it will follow that Christ and Belial 
are incorporated with each other.’ 

“ Nay, it will not follow from hence, ‘Those who are 
the mystical body of Christ, still feel the flesh lusting 
against the Spirit,’ that Christ has any fellowship with 
the devil; or with that sin which he enables them to 
resist and overcome. 

“‘But are not Christians “come to the heavenly Je¬ 
rusalem,” where “nothing defiled can enter?”’ IJeb. xii, 
22. Yes; ‘and to an innumerable company of angels, 
and to the spirits of just men made perfect:’ that is, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


345 


* Earth and heaven all agree; 

All is one great family.’ 

And they are likewise holy and undefiled, while they 
'walk after the Spirit;’ although sensible there is an¬ 
other principle in them, and that ‘ these are contrary to 
each other.’ 

“ 4 But Christians are reconciled to God. Now this 
could not be, if any of the carnal mind remained; for 
this is enmity against God : consequently, no reconci¬ 
liation can be effected, but by its total destruction.’ 

“We are ‘reconciled to God through the blood of the 
cross :’ and in that moment the (f>govr]iia oapicog, the cor¬ 
ruption of nature, which is enmity with God, is put un¬ 
der our feet; the flesh has no more dominion over us. 
But it still exists; and it is still in its nature enmity 
with God, lusting against his Spirit. 

“ ‘ But “they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, 
with its affections and lusts,”’ Gal. v, 24. They have 
so; yet it remains in them still, and often struggles to 
break from the cross. ‘ Nay, but they have “ put off the 
old man with his deeds,”’ Col. iii, 9. They have ; and, 
in the sense above described, ‘old things are passed 
away; all things are become new.’ A hundred texts 
may be cited to the same effect; and they will all ad¬ 
mit of the same answer. ‘ But to say all in one word, 
“ Christ gave himself for the church, that it might be 
holy, and without blemish,” ’ Eph. v, 25, 27. And so it 
will be in the end: but it never was yet, from the be¬ 
ginning to this day. 

“ ‘ But let experience speak: all who are justified 
do at that time find an absolute freedom from all sin.’ 
That I doubt: but, if they do, do they find it ever after ? 
Else you gain nothing. ‘ if they do not, it is their own 
fault.’ That remains to be proved. 

“ ‘ But in the very nature of ;hings, can a man have 


346 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


pride in him, and not be proud; anger, and yet not be 
angry V 

“ A man may have pride in him, may think of him¬ 
self in some particulars above what he ought to think, 
(and so be proud in that particular,) and yet not be a 
proud man in his general character. He may have anger 
in him, yea, and a strong propensity to furious anger, 
without giving way to it. ‘ But can anger and pride 
be in that heart, where only meekness and humility are 
felt?’ No : but some pride and anger may be in that 
heart, where there is much humility and meekness. 

“ ‘ It avails not to say, these tempers are there, but 
they do not reign: for sin cannot, in any kind or de¬ 
gree, exist where it does not reign; for guilt and power 
are essential properties of sin. Therefore, where one 
of them is, all must be.’ 

“ Strange indeed ! ‘ Sin cannot, in any kind or de¬ 
gree, exist where it does not reign' Absolutely con¬ 
trary this to all experience, all Scripture, all common 
sense. Resentment of an affront is sin; it is avopta , 
disconformity to the law of love. This has existed in 
me a thousand times. Yet it did not, and does not, 
reign. ‘ But guilt and power are essential properties 
of sin ; therefore, where one is, all must be.’ No : in 
the instance before us, if the resentment I feel is not 
yielded to, even for a moment, there is no guilt at 
all, no condemnation from God upon that account. 
And in this case it has no power: though it ‘lusteth 
against the Spirit,’ it cannot prevail. Here, therefore, 
as in ten thousand instances, there is sin without either 
guilt or power. 

‘“But the supposing sin in a believer is pregnan 
with everything frightful aud discouraging. It implies 
the contending with a power that has the possession 
of our strength; maintains his usurpation of our hearts. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


347 


and there prosecutes the war in defiance of our Re¬ 
deemer.’ Not so: the supposing sin is in us, does not 
imply that it has the possession of our strength ; no 
more than a man crucified has the possession of those 
that crucify him. As little does it imply, that ‘sin 
maintains its usurpation of our hearts.’ The usurper 
is dethroned. He remains indeed where he once 
reigned; but remains in chains. So that he does, in 
some sense, ‘prosecute the war,’ yet he grows weaker 
and weaker; while the believer goes on from strength 
to strength, conquering and to conquer. 

“ ‘ I am not satisfied yet: he that hath sin in him, is 
a slave to sin. Therefore, you suppose a man to be 
justified while he is a slave to sin. Now if you allow 
men may be justified while they have pride, anger, or 
unbelief in them ; nay, if you aver, these are (at least 
for a time) in all that are justified, what wonder that 
we have so many proud, angry, unbelieving believers?’ 

“ I do not suppose any man who is justified is a slave 
to sin: yet I do suppose sin remains (at least for a time) 
in all that are justified. 

“ ‘ But, if sin remains in a believer, he is a sinful 
man : if pride, for instance, then he is proud; if self- 
will, then he is self-willed ; if unbelief, then he is an 
unbeliever-—consequently, no believer at all. How 
then does he differ from unbelievers, from unregene¬ 
rate men V This is still mere playing upon words. It 
means no more than, if there is sin, pride, self-will, in 
him, then—there is sin, pride, self-will. And this no¬ 
body can deny. In that sense then he is proud, or self- 
willed. But he is not proud or self-willed in the same 
sense that unbelievers are, that is, governed by pride 
or self-will. Herein he differs from unregenerate men. 
They obey sin ; he does not. Flesh is in them both : 
but they walk after the flesh; he walks after the Spirit. 


348 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“‘But how can unbelief be in a believer?’ That 
word has two meanings. It means either no faith, or 
little faith ; either the absence of faith, or the weakness 
of it. In the former sense, unbelief is not in a believer; 
in the latter, it is in all babes. Their faith is com¬ 
monly mixed with doubt or fear, that is, in the latter 
sense with unbelief. ‘Why are ye fearful, (says our 
Lord,) O ye of little faith ?’ Again, ‘ O thou of little 
faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?’ You see here was 
unbelief in believers; little faith and much unbelief. 

“ ‘ But this doctrine, that sin remains in a believer; 
that a man may be in the favor of God, while he has 
sin in his heart; certainly tends to encourage men in 
sin.’ Understand the proposition right, and no such 
consequence follows. A man may be in God’s favor 
though he feel sin; but not if he yields to it. Having 
sin does not forfeit the favor of God; giving way to sin 
does. Though the flesh in you ‘lust against the Spirit,’ 
you may still be a child of God; but if you ‘walk after 
the flesh,’ you are a child of the devil. Now this doc¬ 
trine does not encourage to obey sin, but to resist it with 
all your might.”* 

“Your finding sin remaining in you still, is no 
proof that you are not a believer. Sin does remain in 
one that is justified, though it has not dominion over 
him. For he has not a clean heart at first, neither are 
‘all things’ as yet ‘become new.’ But fear not, 
though you have an evil heart. Yet a little while,, and 
you shall be endued with power from on high, whereby 
you may ‘purify yourselves, even as He is pure;’ and 
be ‘ holy, as He which hath called you is holy.’ ”f 
If further evidence of Mr. Wesley’s opposition to the 
theory in question is necessary, take the following .— 
“ When does inward sanctification begin ? In the mo- 
* Works, vol. i, pp. 113-115. tlbid., vol. iii, p. 188. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


349 


ment a man is justified. (Yet sin remains in him, yea, 
the seed of all sin, till he is sanctified throughout.) 
From that time a believer gradually dies to sin, and 
grows in grace.”* 

“ Q. 22. By what ‘fruit of the Spirit’ may we ‘ know 
that we are of God,’ even in the highest sense ? 

“ A. By love, joy, peace, always abiding; by inva¬ 
riable long-suffering, patience, resignation ; by gentle¬ 
ness, triumphing over all provocation; by goodness, 
mildness, sweetness, tenderness of spirit; by fidelity, 
simplicity, godly sincerity; by meekness, calmness, 
evenness of spirit; by temperance, not only in food and 
sleep, but in all things natural and spiritual. 

“ Q. 23. But what great matter is there in this ? 
Have we not all this when we are justified? 

“ A. What, total resignation to the will of God, with¬ 
out any mixture of self-will ? gentleness, without any 
touch of anger, even the moment we are provoked? 
love to God, without the least love to the creature, but 
in and for God, excluding all pride ? love to man, ex¬ 
cluding all envy, all jealousy, and rash judging? meek¬ 
ness, keeping the whole soul inviolably calm ? and 
temperance in all things? Deny that any ever came 
up to this, if you please; but do not say all who are 
justified do. 

“ Q. 24. But some who are newly justified do. 
What then wfill you say to these ? 

“ A. If they really do, I will say they are sanctified ; 
saved from sin in that moment; and that they never 
need lose what God has given, or feel sin any more. 

“ But certainly this is an exempt case. It is other¬ 
wise with the generality of those that are justified : 
they feel in themselves more or less pride, anger, self- 
will, a heart bent to backsliding. And till they have 
* Plain Account, pp. 48, 49. 


350 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


gradually mortified these, they are not fully renewed 
in love.”* 

Mr. Fletcher gives us his views upon this point, with 
some reasons for them, as follows :— 

“ We do not deny that the remains of the carnal 
mind still cleave to imperfect Christians ; and that, 
when the expression ‘ carnal’ is softened and qualified, 
it may, in a low sense, be applied to such professors 
as those Corinthians were, to whom St. Paul said, ‘I 
could not speak to you as to spiritual.’ But could not 
the apostle be yet ‘ spoken to as a spiritual man V And 
does he not allow that, even in the corrupted churches 
of Corinth and Galatia, there were some truly spiritual 
men—some adult, perfect Christians ? See 1 Cor. xiv, 
37, and Gal. vi, l.”t 

Again,— 

“ The same Spirit of faith which initially purifies our 
hearts, when we cordially believe the pardoning love 
of God, completely cleanses them, when we fully be¬ 
lieve his sanctifying love.”J 

In addition to these quotations, which certainly sup¬ 
pose sanctification subsequent to, and not always im¬ 
mediately connected with, justification, we may refer 
to this author’s “ Address to Imperfect Believers,” the 
whole of which proceeds upon the supposition that 
there is a class of “believers,” and, of course, persons 
who are justified, who are not yet fully sanctified. 
Upon the principle under consideration, that masterly 
effort, and, if we rightly judge, the best part of the 
treatise, is grossly absurd: for it is a strong effort to 
urge on “believers” to an attainment which they have 
already reached, and which is a necessary concomitant 
of justifying faith. 

* Plain Account, pp 124,125. t Last Check, Sec. 8. t lb., Sec. 19 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


351 


Mr. Watson takes the Wesleyan position, and sus¬ 
tains it by Scripture. 

“ That a distinction exists between a regenerate 
state and a state of entire and perfect holiness will be 
generally allowed. Regeneration, we have seen, is 
concomitant with justification; but the apostles, in 
addressing the body of believers in the churches to 
whom they wrote their epistles, set before them, both 
in the prayers they offer in their behalf, and in the 
exhortations they administer, a still higher degree of 
deliverance from sin, as well as a higher growth in 
Christian virtues. Two passages only need be quoted 
to prove this:—1. Thess. v, 23, ‘And the very God 
of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your 
whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blame¬ 
less unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ 2 Cor. 
vii, 1, ‘Having these promises, dearly beloved, let us 
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.’ In both 
these passages deliverance from sin is the subject 
spoken of; and the prayer in one instance, and the 
exhortation in the other, goes to the extent of the entire 
sanctification of ‘ the soul’ and ‘ spirit,’ as well as of the 
‘flesh’ or ‘ body,’ from all sin; by which can only be 
meant our complete deliverance from all spiritual pol¬ 
lution, all inward depravation of the heart, as well as 
that which, expressing itself outwardly by the in¬ 
dulgence of the senses, is called ‘ filthiness of the 
flesh.’ ”* 

The following is taken from Everett’s Life of Dr . 
Adam Clarke :—“To another friend, who had been 
misinformed respecting the higher blessing of purity, 
Mr. Clarke observed, ‘ As to the words which you 
quote as mine, I totally disclaim them. I never said, 
* Institutes, part ii, chap. 23. 


352 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


I never intended to say, them. I believe justification 
and sanctification to be widely distinct works. I have 
been twenty-three years a travelling preacher, and have 
been acquainted with some thousands of Christians 
during that time, who were in different states of grace; 
and I never, to my knowledge, met with a single in¬ 
stance where God both justified and sanctified at the 
same time. I have heard of such, but I never saw 
them, and doubt whether any such ever existed. I 
have known multitudes who were justified according 
to the definition which you give of that sacred work ; 
and I have known many who were sanctified in the 
sense in which you use that word, which I believe to 
be quite correct: but all these I found were brought 
into these different states at separate times; having 
previously received a deep conviction of the need of 
pardon, and afterward of the need of holiness of heart. 
If sanctification be taken in the sense in which it is 
frequently used in the Old Testament, to separate , or 
set apart for sacred use , then it implies a state lower 
than that of justification—such a state as that of a 
thorough penitent, who, when he is convinced of sin, 
separates himself from all unrighteousness, and con¬ 
secrates himself to God. But when I speak of the 
purification of the heart, or doctrine of Christian per¬ 
fection, I use sanctification in the sense in which it 
has generally been understood among the Methodists.” 

2. To the doctrine that entire sanctification is a dis¬ 
tinct work, and subsequent to justification, we, as min¬ 
isters of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have fully 
set our seal on our full induction into the ministerial 
office. In the Discipline, chap, i, sec. 9, the fourth 
question and the answer to it are as follows : “ What 
method do we use in receiving a preacher at the con¬ 
ference? After solemn fasting and prayer, every person 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


353 


proposed shall then be asked, before the conference, 
the following questions, (with any others which may be 
thought necessary,) viz.:—Have you faith in Christ ? 
Are you going on to perfection ? Do you expect to be 
made perfect in love in this life ? Are you groaning 
after it ?” These questions we have answered in the 
affirmative. The point that I conceive plainly couched 
in this passage, and which I wish here particularly 
noticed, is, that it is supposed that “faith in Christ,” 
that is, justifying faith , does not necessarily imply 
“perfect love.” The candidate must have this “faith,” 
and must, at least, be expecting to be made “ perfect 
in love,” and be “ groaning after it.” 

3. The position, that entire sanctification always ac¬ 
companies justification, is not in accordance with fact 
and experience. 

Who are those among us who are concerned for 
this blessing of perfect love? Are they those who have 
never been justified? or those who, having been justi¬ 
fied, have fallen from that state? Not these, surely; 
but those who retain their justification, and do honor 
to the Christian name; those who are most active and 
useful in the church. These are the persons who are 
most athirst for the blessing of a clean heart and entire 
consecration to God. 

The unregenerate, when under conviction, do not 
feel the burden of their corruptions so much as the 
guilt of their sins. They seek pardon and acceptance, 
and not entire sanctification. And it may well be 
questioned whether any one ever fully sees the hidden 
corruptions of his heart until aided by the light of con¬ 
verting grace. The language of the penitent is, “ God 
be merciful to me, a sinner !” “ Remember not against 
me former iniquities !” “ 0, blot out all my iniquities, 
for thy name’s sake !” His guilt is his great burden. 


i 


354 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


and its removal in justification the object of his desires 
and prayers. When he finds pardon, he rejoices in 
God, and for a time seems to think all his enemies 
slain. But when his first ecstasies subside, he finds 
there are yet within him the remains of corruption. 
Upon this discovery it is not strange for him to sup¬ 
pose that he had been deceived in his former conclu¬ 
sions ; that he was really justified and born again, or, if 
not, that he has lost the blessing of pardon. Farther 
investigation of his feelings, and a thorough trial of the 
evidence upon which he relies, by the infallible test of 
God’s word, lead him to conclude that he had indeed 
passed a great change—that God had brought him 
fully into the light of the new birth, and that it is by 
the aid of this light that he is enabled to discover the 
great deep of his own heart. From this point the dis¬ 
ciple of Christ advances with greater or less rapidity 
to the high ground of holiness promised in the gospel. 

The sketch I have here given will be found to ac¬ 
cord with the experience of Christians in general, so 
that it may be presumed to constitute a law in the 
great process of spiritual renovation. If there ever 
was an instance of one who, before justification, had a 
distinct and comprehensive idea of his inward corrup¬ 
tions, and who sought and obtained entire sanctifica¬ 
tion at the time of his justification, it must be consid¬ 
ered, as Mr. Wesley very justly says, “ an exempt 
case and I will add, it is such a case as never came 
under my own observation. 

Again. Is it not presuming too far to suppose that 
those who have professed this high and holy state were 
mistaken—that they do not understand the character 
of their own experience? To say nothing of those 
among ourselves who have made professions of this 
kind, and have given the most indubitable proofs of 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


355 


their sincerity, let us refer to Messrs. Fletcher, Bram- 
well, Carvosso; Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Fletcher, Lady 
Maxwell, and a host of others who have died in the 
faith. All these explicitly declare that they received a 
distinct witness of this second blessing; that while in 
a justified state they felt the workings of inward cor¬ 
ruption : they sought by prayer and faith for deliver¬ 
ance, and obtained a clear and satisfactory evidence 
of entire sanctification ; so that they “reckoned them¬ 
selves dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God through 
Jesus Christ.” They now had the witness of perfect 
love, distinct from the witness of pardon which was 
communicated on their justification. Now shall we 
say they mistook the operations of their own minds? 
This we might do if there were anything in their ex¬ 
perience contrary to the word of God; or if they had 
in other instances exhibited signs of mental aberration 
or incorrigible enthusiasm, we might be justified in 
supposing that they were self-deceived. But of the 
persons above named we can form no such conclusion. 
In all they say on other points, reason and the true 
spirit of the gospel are predominant. Why should we 
conclude them entirely beside themselves here ? In¬ 
deed, if the gospel remains the same that it was in the 
days of John and Paul, we have good reason to con¬ 
clude them in their sober senses even when they make 
their highest professions. 

In the course of a careful reading of Mr. Wesley’s 
Journal, I have marked a multitude of cases of entire 
sanctification, recorded with notes of approbation, 
which furnish the clearest evidence of the distinctness 
of the work of entire sanctification from that of justifi¬ 
cation or regeneration in point of time. A few of these 
instances I here give as specimens of the whole. 
Thus it will be seen 'that the evidence of experience 


356 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


so far as it came under Mr. Wesley’s notice, and he 
was capable of judging, is full and conclusive. 

“After preaching I talked with M. B. who has been 
long ‘ a mother in Israel.’ ‘ I was under strong con¬ 
victions,’ said she, ‘when twelve or thirteen years 
old, and soon after found peace with God. But I lost 
it by degrees, and then contented myself with living a 
quiet, harmless life, till Mr. Charles Wesley came to 
Wednesbury, in the year 1742. Soon after this my 
convictions returned, though not with terror, as before,* 
but with strong hope ; and, in a little time, I recovered 
peace and joy in believing. This I never lost since, 
but for forty-eight hours ; (by speaking angrily to my 
child.) Not long after, Mr. Jones talked particularly 
with me, about the wickedness of my heart. I went 
home in great trouble, which did not cease, till one 
day, sitting in my house, I heard a voice say, in my 
inmost soul, “ Be ye holy ; for I am holy.” From that 
hour, for a year and a quarter, (though I never lost my 
peace,) I did nothing but long, and weep, and pray, for 
inward holiness. I was then sitting one day, Aug. 23, 
1744, about eight in the morning, musing and praying 
as usual, when I seemed to hear a loud voice, seeing 
at once to my heart and to my outward ears, “ This 
day shall salvation come to this house.” I ran up 
stairs, and presently the power of God came upon me, 
so that I shook all over like a leaf. Then a voice said, 
“This day is salvation come to this house,” At the 
instant I felt an entire change. I was full of love, and 
lull of God. I had the witness in myself, that he had 
made an end of sin, and taken my whole heart for ever. 
And from that moment I have never lost the witness, 
nor felt any thing in my heart but pure love.’ ”* 

“ John Manners writes: ‘ The work of God increases 
* Works, vol. iii, pp. 624, 625. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


357 


every day. There is hardly a day but some are justi 
fied, or sanctified, or both. On Thursday three came 
and told me that the blood of Jesus Christ had cleansed 
them from all sin. One of them told me she had been 
justified seven years, and had been five years con¬ 
vinced of the necessity of sanctification. But this easy 
conviction availed not. A fortnight since she was 
seized with so keen a conviction, as gave her no rest 
till God had sanctified her, and witnessed it to her 
heart.’ Three days after, (May 11,) he writes thus :— 

“ ‘ God still continues his marvellous loving kind¬ 
ness to us. On Sunday last, Dor. King entered into 
the rest. She had been seeking it for some time ; but 
her convictions and desires grew stronger and stronger, 
as the hour approached. A while ago she told me she 
grew worse and worse, and her inward conflicts were 
greater than ever: but on the Lord’s day she felt an 
entire change, while these words were spoke to her 
heart, “ Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in 
thee.” She now walks in sweet peace, and rejoices 
evermore. Her father received the blessing a few 
days before her, and is exceeding happy. 

“ ‘ The fire catches all that come near. An old 
soldier, in his return from Germany, to the north of 
Ireland, fell in one night with these wrestling Jacobs, 
to his great astonishment. He was justified seventeen 
years ago, but afterward fell from it for five years. As 
he was going to Germany, in the beginning of the war, 
the Lord healed him in Dublin ; and in spite of all the 
distresses of a severe campaign, he walked in the light 
continually. On his return through London, he was 
convinced of the necessity of sanctification ; and soon 
after he came hither, his heart was broken in pieces, 
while he was with a little company who meet daily for 
prayer. One evening, as they were going away, he 


358 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


stopped them, and begged they would not go till the 
Lord had blessed him. They kneeled down again, 
and did not cease wrestling with God, till he had a 
witness that he was saved from all sin. 

“ ‘ The case of Mr. Timmins is no less remarkable. 
He had been a notorious sinner. He was deeply 
wounded two months since. Ten days ago, on a Fri¬ 
day, God spake peace to his soul. The Sunday fol¬ 
lowing, after a violent struggle, he sunk down as dead. 
He was cold as clay. After about ten minutes he 
came to himself, and cried, “ A new heart, a new 
heart!” He said he felt himself in an instant entirely 
emptied of sin, and filled with God. Brother Barry, 
likewise, had been justified but a few days, before God 
gave him purity of heart.’ ”* 

“ So deep and general was the impression now made 
upon the people, that even at five in the morning I was 
obliged to preach abroad, by the numbers who flocked 
to hear, although the northerly wind made the air ex¬ 
ceedingly sharp. A little after preaching, one came 
to me who believed God had just set her soul at full 
liberty. She had been clearly justified long before; 
but said, the change she now experienced was ex¬ 
tremely different from what she experienced then; as 
different as the noon-day light from that of daybreak : 
that she now felt her soul all love, and- quite swallowed 
up in God. Now suppose, ten weeks or ten months 
hence, this person should be cold or dead, shall I say, 
‘She deceived herself; this was merely the work of 
her own imagination V Not at all. I have no right so 
to judge, nor authority so to speak. I will rather say, 
‘ She was unfaithful to the grace of God, and so cast 
away what was really given? Therefore that way of 
talking which has been very common, of staying ‘ to 

* Wesley’s Works, vol. iv, pp. 130, 131. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


359 


see if the gift be really given,’ which some take to be 
exceeding wise, I take to be exceeding foolish. If a 
man says, ‘ I now feel nothing but love,’ and I know 
him to be an honest man, I believe him. What then 
should I stay to see? Not whether he has such a 
blessing, but whether he will keep it.”* 

To these instances may be added Mr. Wesley’s re¬ 
flections upon this great work of entire sanctification. 
Nov. 15, 1763, he says :— 

“Here I stood and looked back on the late occurren¬ 
ces. Before Thomas Walsh left England, God began 
that great work which has continued ever since without 
any considerable intermission. During the whole time, 
many have been convinced of sin, many justified, and 
many backsliders healed. But the peculiar work of this 
season has been, what St. Paul calls ‘ the perfecting of 
the saints.’ Many persons in London, in Bristol, in York, 
and in various parts both of England and Ireland, have 
experienced so deep and universal a change, as it had 
not before entered into their hearts to conceive. After 
a deep conviction of inbred sin, of their total fall from 
God, they have been so filled with faith and love, (and 
generally in a moment,) that sin vanished, and they 
found from that time, no pride, anger, desire, or unbe¬ 
lief. They could rejoice evermore, pray without ceas¬ 
ing, and in every thing give thanks. Now, whether we 
call this the destruction or suspension of sin, it is a 
glorious work of God : such a work as, considering 
both the depth and extent of it, we never saw in these 
kingdoms before.”! 

The instances above adduced, so far as the record 
goes, are genuine and reliable instances of the experi¬ 
ence of “ the second blessing and certain it is, that 
Mr. Wesley, who, it must be admitted, had better, op- 
* Wesley’s Works, vol. iv, p. 15T. t Tbid., vol. iv. p. 165. 


360 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


portunities to judge of their character than any one now 
can claim to have, so considered them. And in them 
all, and many more of the same class which might be 
added, from the same source, it is worthy of remark: 
1. That the individuals had a clear evidence of justifi¬ 
cation. 2. That while in possession of this evidence, 
they became convinced of the existence of inward 
corruptions, or inbred sin. And, 3. That they experi¬ 
enced a sensible renovation of heart in which all sin 
was taken away, and they were enabled to love God 
with all the heart, and to rejoice evermore, pray with¬ 
out ceasing, and in every thing to give thanks. 

But there are multitudes in all the Christian churches 
who exhibit the fruits and have the inward testimony 
of a state of justification, but who do not enjoy the 
great blessing of perfect love. What shall we say 
concerning these, upon the hypothesis here opposed ? 
We must, so far as I can see, come to one of the fol¬ 
lowing conclusions concerning them. Either they 
were never really justified, or they have lost their 
entire sanctification without losing their justification, 
or they have lost both the one and the other, and are, 
consequently, in a backslidden state. 

Can we, consistently with charity, come to the first 
conclusion, viz., that all those Christians who are con¬ 
scious of the absence of the entire sanctification, or 
perfect love, in question, were never really born of the 
Spirit or justified ? Perhaps none would, for a mo¬ 
ment., embrace such a conclusion. And will any who 
hold the identity of the new birth and entire sanctifica¬ 
tion, fall upon the second supposition, viz., that these 
persons have lost the blessing of perfect love, and yet 
retain that of regeneration ? This conclusion seems 
incongruous and even absurd. For if these two things 
are identical, how can they be separated ? If there is 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


361 


any reason which goes to identify regeneration and ' 
entire sanctification in their commencement, does not 
the same reason identify them in their progress ? If they 
are one and the same, how can they be separated under 
any circumstances or at any time ? 

Well, who will embrace the third supposition, viz., 
that all who were ever justified and do not now enjoy 
the blessing of entire sanctification, have fallen away 
from the favor of God, and are not in a state of gracious 
acceptance? I think few will hazard such a conclusion 
as this. The result, then, to which I come is, that the 
theory which asserts that entire sanctification invariably 
takes place when justification ,and regeneration take 
place, is inconsistent with fact and experience. 

4. I next urge that the view here opposed is incon¬ 
sistent with the language of Scripture upon the subject. 

In the quotation from Mr. Fletcher, we have a re¬ 
ference to the defective churches of Corinth and Ga¬ 
latia—the fact, that they were not in a state of entire 
sanctification, being in a sense “ carnal,” and yet, that 
they were in a sense “ spiritual,” urged in proof of the 
error of the doctrine here opposed. A stronger proof 
is that of Mr. Watson, deduced from 1 Thess. v, 23, 
and 2 Cor. vii, 1, and which I need not here repeat. 

I wish, however, these Scripture proofs to be taken 
into the account in connection with this argument. 

To these Scripture arguments I will add several 
others. In John, chap, xvii, we have our Saviour’s 
prayer to the Father, a portion of which concerns his 
disciples. These, he says, “are not of the world, even 
as I am not of the world.” And again claims them as 
his —“I pray,” says he, “for those thou hast given me.” 
And for them he offers up this prayer: “Sanctify them 
through thy truth, thy word is truth,” v. 27. Now 
though the language of Christ, in this case, implies 


362 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


that those for whom he prays are his by adoption, yet 
the prayer for their sanctification implies that this great 
work had not been completed in them. 

Again, (in Heb. vi, 1,) the Hebrew Christians, who 
must certainly be considered to be in a gracious state, 
are exhorted to “ go on to perfection,” which would 
scarcely be expected if they had already attained per¬ 
fection. 

Finally, in 1 John i, 7, we read, “If we walk in the 
light as he is in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ his 
Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Observe, 1. In this 
passage we are supposed to be “ in the light,” and, 
2. That by walking in this “light” we may be cleansed 
from all sin. To suppose that the moment we enter the 
light we are already cleansed from all sin , would be 
to make the language of this passage absurd. We are 
nowhere told that we must “ walk in the light as he is 
in the light” in order to obtain justification, nor would 
it be consistent to urge us to do anything in order to 
the attainment of what we already most assuredly have 
in possession. 

I can scarcely close this argument in more appro¬ 
priate terms than in the language in which Mr. Wesley 
closes his affirmative proof of his positions. He 
says :—“ One argument more against this new, un- 
scriptural doctrine, may be drawm from the dreadful 
consequences of it. One says, ‘I felt anger to-day.’ 
Must I reply, ‘Then you have no faith?’ Another says, 
‘I know what you advise is good, but my will is quite 
averse to it.’ Must I tell him, ‘Then you are an un¬ 
believer, under the wrath and the curse of God?’ What 
will be the natural consequence of this? Why, if he 
believe what I say, his soul will not only be grieved 
and wounded, but perhaps utterly destroyed; inasmuch 
as he will ‘cast away’ that ‘confidence which hath 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


363 


great recompense of reward;’ and having cast away 
his shield, how shall he ‘ quench the fiery darts of the 
wicked one ?’ How shall he overcome the world ?— 
seeing ‘ this is the victory that overcometh the world, 
even our faith.’ He stands disarmed in the midst of 
his enemies, open to all their assaults. What wonder 
then if he be utterly overthrown ; if they take him 
captive at their will; yea, if he fall from one wicked¬ 
ness to another, and never see good anymore? I can¬ 
not, therefore, by any means receive this assertion, 
that there is no sin in a believer from the moment he 
is justified; first, because it is contrary to the whole 
tenor of Scripture ;—secondly, because it is contrary 
to the experience of the children of God ;—thirdly, be¬ 
cause it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world 
till yesterday;—and, lastly, because it is naturally at¬ 
tended with the most fatal consequences; not only 
grieving those whom God hath not grieved, but per¬ 
haps dragging them into everlasting perdition.”* 

In the preceding editions of this work, the subject 
of the present lecture was treated with great brevity, 
and constituted a part of the preceding lecture. I have 
been induced to expand the discussion, and occupy an 
entire lecture with it, on account of the great import¬ 
ance of the subject, and the deep interest it has re¬ 
cently excited. The evidence here presented will 
leave no possible ground for reasonable doubt with re¬ 
gard to what the Wesleyan theory teaches upon the 
subject. And that the Methodist Episcopal Church 
has received and sustained the same theory from the 
beginning is equally clear. The doctrine of entire 
sanctification , as a distinct work wrought in the soul by 
the Holy Ghost, is the great distinguishing doctrine of 
Methodism. This given up, and we have little left 

* Works, vol. i., p. 111. 


364 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


which we do not hold in common with other evangeli¬ 
cal denominations. The doctrine is essential to the 
integrity of Wesleyan Methodism. Consequently, any 
innovation upon this great distinguishing doctrine 
should be guarded against with the utmost vigilance. 
And believing, as I do, that the theory which identifies 
justification and entire sanctification, in point of time, 
not only wars against, but utterly subverts, the Scrip¬ 
ture doctrine of sanctification, as taught by our stand¬ 
ard writers ; and, as I love Methodism, in all its 
original beauty and simplicity; I deprecate the intro¬ 
duction of this dogma, that one who has saving faith 
is in all cases free from sin. A great pity it is that 
these novel and unscnptural notions had not been left 
to expire with Count Zinzendorf, Thomas Maxfield, 
and George Bell. Why have they had a resurrection ? 
And would it not be a sad indication of the degeneracy 
of Methodism in this country, if what Mr. Wesley, under 
God, our great founder, considered heresy, and op¬ 
posed with all his might, should be cherished as the 
very marrow of the gospel by the ministers and people 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church ? It is to be hoped 
that the day is far distant when such will be the fact. 
The true Wesleyan system cannot be mended—at 
least it will gain nothing by the accession of the 
foreign and antagonist element opposed in this lecture. 
It will bring us no nearer the teachings of the Bible : 
it will not facilitate our great mission,—“ the spread 
of Scriptural holiness throughout the land.” Let 
us not mix water with our excellent “ old wine,” 
but abide in our calling, and urge all believers to “ go 
on to perfection;” and may our God, and our fathers’ 
God, go with us, and bring us, as a people, into the 
possession of that goodly inheritance prepared and 
promised by the great Captain of our salvation. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


365 


LECTURE XYII. 

DIRECT SCRIPTURE PROOFS. 

“This is the will of God, even your sanctification,” 1 Thess. iv, 3. 

The purpose of the present lecture shall be to pre¬ 
sent the direct Scripture evidence of the attainableness 
of a state of entire sanctification in this life. 

But before I proceed to state the proofs, I wish to 
direct attention to the results at which I have arrived 
in the preceding lectures. A review of these will show 
that I now approach the direct Scripture proof of the 
main question with a strong probability in its favour. 
This probability, it will be seen, has accumulated with 
every successive step in the progress of the argument. 

I have first shown that persons in a gracious state 
are urged to proceed to higher attainments. In the 
next place, these attainments, as clearly defined in the 
New Testament, are found to imply a state of holi¬ 
ness above the common grade—implying, a death to 
sin and a life to righteousness: then it is shown that 
many learned and pious divines agree in the attain¬ 
ableness of a state of Christian perfection. After 
this a brief review of the history of the controversy 
is attempted; in which it is found that the Wesleyan 
system of evangelical perfection had not been embraced 
by the ancient or modern heretics, and, of course, had 
never been condemned by the orthodox; and when this 
system was brought into question, divines equally 
zealous for the doctrines of original sin, human impo- 
tency, the influences of the Spirit, the holiness of the 
law, the change of the covenants—that the covenant 
of grace supersedes that of works, as the ground of 


366 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


human acceptance—and for many other points of 
Christian doctrine, were divided upon this question; 
one party asserting, and the other denying, the attain¬ 
ableness of such a state of perfection: then the objec¬ 
tions against the doctrine are duly weighed and found 
untenable. And, finally, several theories upon the sub- 
jecl of the time when we are authorized to expect en¬ 
tire sanctification are examined, and the position taken 
by our opponents, that sin necessarily continues in the 
soul until the death of the body, is shown to be unsup 
ported either by Scripture or sound philosophy. 

If then I have succeeded in clearing the ground so 
far as I have proceeded in the argument; if the great 
elements of the doctrine are settled in the word of God, 
and no valid objection stands against it; and if the 
opposite theory is grossly absurd and anti-scriptural, is 
it not highly probable that our theory is the true one ? 
I say, then, that I approach the direct Scripture proof 
with a very strong probability in my favour. Indeed, 
it is scarcely possible that a theory against which there 
is no Scripture testimony, or solid objection founded in 
the nature of things, or God’s established plan of action, 
and in favour of which there are so many probabilities, 
should be false ; and it is not at all possible that it 
should be a dangerous error. So that if we had not 
a single explicit proof to allege from the Bible, our 
doctrine at least might be presumed to be safe, and not 
liable to the charge of heresy. 

But we have ample Scripture testimony which we 
suppose directly in point. This I shall now proceed 
to adduce. 

1. I first urge, that God commands us to be perfect, 
“ Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which 
is in heaven is perfect,” Matt, v, 48. Again, “ Finally, 
brethren, farewell. Be perfect.” “Thou shalt love 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


367 


the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, 
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength,” Mark 
xii, 30. “Having, therefore, these promises, dearly 
beloved, let us cleanse oifrselves from all filthiness of 
the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of 
God,” 2 Cor. vii, 1. 

I need add no further instances of this class, because 
if the argument which I base upon these is valid, the 
evidence they afford is perfectly conclusive, but if 
unsound, a multitude of passages of the same class 
would give it no additional strength. 

But before I proceed further I must examine the 
position taken upon all such passages as contain the 
words perfection, blameless, entire, &c. When we 
urge these terms, either found in precepts or examples, 
our opponents claim the right so to qualify them, as to 
make them mean little or nothing. 

Dr. Snodgrass disposes of these terms thus :—“ It 
is not denied, that there are words and phrases em¬ 
ployed in Scripture, which, if understood in the great¬ 
est latitude of meaning of which they are susceptible, 
would imply that not a few both of the Old and New 
Testament saints were -without sin. These are such 
as the words 4 perfect,’ 4 entire,’ 4 complete,’ 4 blame¬ 
less.’ It is said of Noah, Job, and others, that they 
were perfect —of all Christians, that they are complete 
—of Zachariah and Elisabeth, that they walked in all 
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blame * 
less. But, it is granted on all hands, that these and 
other terms of similar import are often used in a 
qualified and restricted sense ; ‘and therefore no de¬ 
cisive proof can be drawn from their appearance in 
this connection.”* 

Dr. Woods takes the same ground. After consider- 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 33, 34. 


368 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


ing several of the passages alleged in this argument, 
he comes to this result:—“ As a limited sense clearly 
belongs to some of the passages which seem, at first 
view, to favour the doctrine of ‘ perfection,’ it is quite 
possible it may belong to others , and it would be going 
too fast and too far, to decide at once, that any of that 
class of texts must be taken in the highest and most 
absolute sense.” # 

Now, if these learned divines have taken legitimate 
ground upon the passages in question, we must admit 
that they do not certainly prove our theory of’ perfec¬ 
tion. But they proceed upon a false principle of 
interpretation. Their ground is this:—That as the 
terms perfection, blameless, &c., are often used in a 
qualified sense, therefore they are not decisive—we 
are not permitted to give them their full literal sense 
when employed in connection with Christian expe¬ 
rience and character, as they are often used in a quali¬ 
fied sense in other connections. And I will now show 
that the principle of exegesis here assumed is contrary 
to all good authority, is rejected by themselves in the 
consideration of other topics, and, if generally adopted, 
would lead to the most dangerous results. 

The sound principle of exegesis here violated, and 
which I say is sustained by the best authority, is, that 
language is always to be understood in its literal and 
natural sense , unless there is something in the nature 
of the subject to which it is applied which requires the 
restricted meaning. Hooker says :—“ I hold it for a 
most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, 
that when a literal construction will stand, the farthest 
from the letter is commonly the worst. There is 
nothing more dangerous than this licentious and de¬ 
luding art, which changeth the meaning of words, as 
* Examination of the Doctrine of Perfection, pp. G9, 70. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. .109 

alchymy doth or would do the substance of metals, 
maketh of any thing what it listeth, and bringeth in the 
end all truth to nothing .”—Ecclesiastical Polity , book 
v, chap. 59. 

If it should be urged that the case in question is one 
of the cases of exception provided for by the rule, it is 
replied, that this is begging the whole question. We 
do not admit this. And our opponents have no right 
to assume it without proof. 

But do our opponents admit the principle which they 
here adopt in other cases ? A case precisely in point 
is the mode of argument pursued by Universalists. 
These learned doctors would bring against them all 
those passages which set forth the duration of future 
punishment by the terms eternal , everlasting , &c. 
But the Universalist objects : “ These and other terms 
of similar import are often used in a qualified and 
restricted sense; and therefore no decisive proof can 
be drawn from their appearance in this connection.” 
Now how would these gentlemen proceed in this case? 
Would they admit the Universalist law of exegesis? 
or would they rather say, the literal sense has the 
prior claim, and unless you can show, without begging 
the whole question at issue, that there is something in 
the nature of the case that requires the restricted sense 
to be given these terms in the cases in question, you 
are bound by all just laws of interpretation, to give 
them their literal sense. Now shall we permit them, 
in cases precisely similar, to take opposite positions ? 
Can they honourably and consistently adopt a principle 
of exegesis in one case, and, in another, precisely simi¬ 
lar, wholly abandon it, because, forsooth, it would lead 
them to a result which they would fain avoid ? 

I now need not, surely, spend much time in showing 
that the principle of interpretation adopted by these 


370 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


learned doctors would, if followed out, lead to disas¬ 
trous results. It has already been seen what use Uni- 
versalists make of it. And but allow men to qualify 
and restrict the language .of Scripture as they please, 
whenever it comes in the way of their preconceived 
notions, and what error could not be sustained by the 
Bible ? Where should we find our moorings ? The 
free circulation of the Scriptures would, as Romanists 
say, be productive of a multitude of heresies. 

We are then at full liberty to reject as illegitimate 
and ruinous the position taken by our opponents in 
relation to the terms perfection, blameless, &c., and 
to give them their natural meaning, only limiting them 
by the nature of the case, as it is revealed, and by 
explicit passages upon the same subject. Having 
cleared the way, then, I proceed to my argument. 

We are here commanded to “ be perfect,” to “per¬ 
fect holiness,” and, which amounts to the same thing, 
to “love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and 
strength.” All, then, that is necessary to complete 
the argument is, to prove (if it need proof) that all the 
requirements of the gospel are practicable. I know 
Augustine says :—“ God commands us to do some 
things that we are not able to do, that we may know 
what we ought to crave of him.” But whoever has 
a relish for such absurd paradoxes, I have not. I do 
not believe there can be a reason why God should 
require impossibilities, and make the offer of eternal 
life upon the condition of their accomplishment. All 
our feelings and notions of natural justice rise up against 
it, and the Bible explicitly declares that God’s ways are 
jvst and equal. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth 
do right?” is a question once asked by “the father of 
the faithful,” and it is one which is very strongly sug¬ 
gested by assertions or implications, that God may, in 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


371 


the affairs of his government, depart from those esta¬ 
blished principles of justice which he has implanted 
deep in the human conscience, and which everywhere 
characterize his own acts. 

I rather conclude with Mr. Wesley that all the re¬ 
quirements of the gospel may be regarded as so many 
promises. For certainly God would not make con¬ 
ditions that he would not assist us to perform. I 
regard this position as wholly unassailable. It is 
one of those evangelical axioms which scarcely need 
proof. And, indeed, it is seldom directly denied, 
though it is often indirectly, and by logical conse¬ 
quence, called in question. But in all such cases the 
individual finds it convenient to cover himself with a 
cloud of metaphysical distinctions and indefinable sub¬ 
tleties. In such cases sober argument is useless. 
When men will mystify the plainest truths, and in¬ 
volve themselves in the grossest absurdities for the 
sake of a favourite point, we may pity them, but to 
render them effective aid is generally out of the 
question. 

Dr. Snodgrass, instead of coming out directly against 
the principle of this argument, contents himself with 
running it into a supposed absurdity. The supposed 
absurdity is, however, a creature of his own imagina¬ 
tion, and his effort proves, though he chooses not ex¬ 
plicitly to say, that he has no difficulty in supposing 
that the gospel makes impossible conditions . 

2. In the second place, I prove that entire sanctifi¬ 
cation in the present life is attainable, from the provi¬ 
sions of the gospel. 

And, first , Christ has undertaken the work. The 
Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the 
works of the devil. “ Who is he that condemneth ? 
It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again. 


372 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh 
intercession for us,” Rom. viii, 34. “ And that he died 

for all, that they which live should not henceforth live 
unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, 
and rose again,” 2 Cor. v, 15. “Who his own self 
bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, 
being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness : by 
whose stripes ye were healed,” 1 Pet. ii, 24. 

Secondly. The Holy Spirit is poured out to effect it. 
“ Being sanctified by the Holy Ghost,” Rom. xv, 16. 

Thirdly. The word is sent abroad as the grand 
instrument for its accomplishment: “ Sanctify them 
through thy truth : thy word is truth,” John xvii, 17. 
“ Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching 
every man in all wisdom ; that we may present every 
man perfect in Christ Jesus,” Col. i, 28. 

Now our argument is this, that all these provisions 
are made and put in operation without any limitations 
or restrictions as to the time in which the work should 
be accomplished, but the same language is held in 
relation to them as means of entire sanctification, that 
is employed in relation to justification, which it is ac¬ 
knowledged on all hands must take place in this life, 
and may be had at any time when the conditions are 
performed. Therefore I conclude, that provision is 
made for the entire sanctification of believers in this 
life. But here we meet a formidable objection to our 
conclusion. “ The means may exist, and be known, 
without being applied in such a way as to secure the 
end; they are nothing in themselves, and become 
effectual, only as they are overruled and blessed. And 
again, if the provision be supposed to refer to the effi¬ 
cient Agent in sanctification, then we say, that, while 
the provision of the gospel is abundant—while the 
Holy Spirit, who is sent into the world for this purpose, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


373 


is fully able to accomplish the work—it is no legitimate 
inference from this to affirm, that he will bring it to 
perfection during the present life. Whether he will or 
not, must depend altogether upon himself.”* 

And supposing we admit this reasoning correct, what 
then ? Still our conclusion, that entire sanctification is 
attainable, remains good and valid so long as we are per¬ 
mitted to assume that God would not solemnly announce 
a provision as made that he did not intend to carry into 
immediate effect, and we hardly need ask any man’s 
good leave to assume this. To illustrate the subject: 
suppose the streets of New-York thronged with a mul¬ 
titude of miserable paupers, who are perishing for the 
want of food and clothing; and the city authorities 
should undertake to make provisions for their relief. 
And immediately, upon the completion of the arrange¬ 
ments, heralds should be sent in all directions to pro¬ 
claim that the provisions were now made , fully to meet 
every case. The heralds cry aloud, “ The corporation 
store is now open, and the provisions ample; who¬ 
soever will, let him come, and partake freely.” What 
would be the inference ? And suppose when the mul¬ 
titude begins to press to the place of supplies, they 
should find the doors shut and barred. And, lo ! now 
they are told by one fully inducted into the secrets of 
the Common Council, The proclamation was correct 
enough, to be sure, but whoever supposed an announce¬ 
ment that provision is made for the supply of your 
necessities is the same as an assurance that your wants 
will be immediately supplied upon your making appli¬ 
cation? Would the poor perishing creatures have no 
reason to complain of deception and imposition ? Not 
at all, says Dr. Snodgrass, for the provisions will be 
made available in due time. On some future occasion, 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 61, 62. 


374 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


determined upon in secret council, just in time to save 
the people from finally perishing, the stores will be 
opened, and every want fully supplied. But, sir, where 
is the authority for this limitation ? Is there any thing 
of this kind in the proclamation? Were not the peo¬ 
ple invited to come now ? This explanation mends not 
the matter at all. Under such circumstances a pro¬ 
vision could not be announced, and left without any 
explanations with regard to a secret determination 
to delay the application of it in good faith , if such 
were the plan. The people should be told at the com¬ 
mencement not to expect their supplies until a certain 
day , when the stores would be open. 

Ur. Woods has another way of disposing of the 
argument from the provisions of the gospel. It is as 
follows:—“ Mr. Mahan thinks that his peculiar doc¬ 
trine certainly follows from the fact, that provision is 
made for the entire sanctification of believers. This, 
then, shall be my next point of inquiry. From the fact 
that provision is made in the gospel for the complete 
sanctification of believers, does it follow that they will 
be completely sanctified in the present life ? Let us 
dismiss all other points till we have disposed of this. 
It is a matter of reasoning. And those who are accus¬ 
tomed to reasoning know how important it is to give a 
fixed attention to the point under consideration, and to 
be careful not to wander from it.”* 

But the good doctor does Mr. Mahan great injustice 
in this argument. He certainly knew, for he could 
but know, that Mr. Mahan adduces the provisions of 
the gospel “ for the complete sanctification of believers” 
to prove, not the fact that “ they will be completely 
sanctified in this life,” but that “ perfection in holiness 


Examination of the Doctrine of Perfection, p. 22. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


375 


is attainable in this life.”* The question of fact is not 
raised by Mr. Mahan at this point at all, and ought not 
to have been made the question by the doctor in the 
examination of his argument. Through this whole 
chapter the venerable author totally misses the ques¬ 
tion, and perverts, instead of answering, the argument 
of his opponent. We argue, as does Mr. Mahan, that 
provision being made for the entire sanctification of 
believers affords ground to conclude that such a state 
is attainable. 

3. I prove the attainableness of entire sanctification 
in the present life from the promises of the Bible. 
“ And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities,” 
Psa. cxxx, 8. “ Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 

you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, 
and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.—I will also 
save you from all your uncleannesses; and I will call 
for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine 
upon you,” Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 29. “And the Lord thy 
God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy 
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, that thou mayestlive,” Deut. xxx, 
6. “ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after 
righteousness : for they shall be filled,” Matt, v, 6. 
“ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we 
have fellowship one with another, and the blood of 
Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.—If we 
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us 
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” 
1 John i, 7, 9. “ But whoso keepeth his word, in him 

verily is the love of God perfected : hereby know we 
that we are in him,” 1 John ii, 5. 

Dr. Snodgrass concedes that “ if there is a passage 
in the Bible which contains the promise of entire sane- 
* See Mahan on Christian Perfection, p. 20, 



376 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


tification in this life, the whole controversy is thereby 
decided.”* But he denies that any such promise is 
made. Upon the passages alleged he takes the follow¬ 
ing position:— 

“ In this view, the promises which they contain are 
‘ exceeding great and preciousthey secure to every 
believer, beyond all peradventure or possibility of fail¬ 
ure, a perfect deliverance from the existence and pollu¬ 
tion of sin. But, as to the time at which this deliver¬ 
ance is to be consummated, they contain no specifica¬ 
tion, and express no opinion. They are just as con¬ 
sistent with the views of those who suppose that sanc¬ 
tification is never entire in the present life, as with the 
views of those who believe that it is. Nor are there 
any promises in the Bible, relating to this subject, to 
which the same remark will not apply. There are 
many, indeed, which contemplate the perfect holiness 
of believers, but it is of believers in common , and with¬ 
out any limitation to this world as the time and place. 
The work is begun here, and carried on, under different 
circumstances, as well as with various degrees of ra¬ 
pidity. Ere long it will be completed; but, that any 
are to realize this completion, during the present life, 
is more than any promise of God has authorized us to 
expect.”! 

And Dr. Woods takes the same view of these pro¬ 
mises. Thus he proceeds :—“ To me it is manifest, 
that the above-mentioned promise may be accomplished 
in different degrees. It is accomplished in a lower 
degree, when God, by his Spirit, brings men to repent, 
and to render cordial obedience to his law in a small 
measure. It is accomplished in a higher degree, when 
he brings them to render obedience in a larger mea¬ 
sure. And it is accomplished in the highest degree, 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 55. t Ibid., pp. 59, 60, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 377 

or perfectly, when he brings them to render an un¬ 
ceasing and perfect obedience. And this is only say¬ 
ing, what is true in a thousand cases, that a good work 
may be done, or a favour conferred, in different degrees, 
and that its being done in one degree does not neces¬ 
sarily imply that it is done in another and higher de¬ 
gree. It would seem that no one can mistake concern¬ 
ing a matter so plain as this. And yet the conclusive¬ 
ness of much of Mr. Mahan’s reasoning turns upon this 
one point. Take the promise above recited, that all 
shall know God , from the least to the greatest. I ask 
Mr. Mahan whether this promise has ever been com¬ 
pletely fulfilled, respecting either the children of Israel 
or any other nation ? If he says yes, I ask, when ? If 
he says no, as he doubtless will, then I ask, how, on 
this principle of interpreting the promises, he can vin¬ 
dicate the faithfulness of God? Will he say, although 
the promise has never yet been fulfilled, it will be 
hereafter ? Then I ask, why the same may not hold 
in respect to all the texts in which God promises to 
make his people completely holy? If God may be 
faithful in respect to the promise that all shall know 
him, because he will fulfil it at a distant, future period, 
though for thousands of years it has remained unful¬ 
filled, may he not be faithful in respect to his promise 
that his people shall he made perfect in holiness , if he 
fulfils it to them afeiu days hence —that is, when they 
are removed to the heavenly state—although it may 
not be fulfilled during the short period of the present 
life?”* 

Now the misfortune of all this reasoning is, that it 
goes upon the assumption that these promises are of the 
same nature of those which relate to the final conver¬ 
sion of the world : this is the question in dispute, and 
* F.xamination of the Doctrine of Perfection, pp. 31-33. 


378 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


remains to be proved. I go upon the presumption 
that all the promises made to believers, without any 
intimation that their application is not to be made now 
during the present life, and when there is nothing in 
the nature of the case to postpone their fulfilment to 
the future state, are applicable at any time, and may be 
fulfilled at any moment. 

The onus probandi , which our opponents would fain 
throw upon us, here properly devolves on them. It is 
not for us to prove that any promises made without 
qualification may be fulfilled now or during this life; 
but it is for them to prove that in the nature of things, 
or according to the established principles of the divine 
government, their fulfilment is reserved for the life to 
come. 

Is there any thing unfair in this ? Suppose some one 
should attempt to sustain the position that men are not 
justified until after death, and should urge that the pro¬ 
mises of justification will not fail if they are fulfilled 
ultimately; would not our learned doctors require 
such errorists to prove that the effects of faith in this 
case are removed to the future state ? Or would they 
take hold of the labouring oar themselves ? Do they 
not presume, in all other cases, that the provisions and 
promises of the gospel offered to believers, and not 
necessarily removed to the future state, are applicable 
now, and are attainable in the present life ? Doubtless 
they do. Only, then, let them be consistent, and they 
will yield the ground. 

This is certainly all the answer that this argument 
requires in this place, especially as in the preceding 
lecture I have presented from Mr. Watson an irrefutable 
argument against this mode of dealing with the pro¬ 
mises and provisions of the gospel, in relation to entire 
sanctification. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 379 

4. In the next place, I urge that a state of entire 
sanctification is made a matter of prayer. 

Our Lord, in the form of prayer which he left for the 
instruction of the church, directs us to say, “Deliver 
us from evil.” This petition is not restricted to physical 
evil, nor to a portion of moral evil, but is left to apply to 
sin in general, and of course embraces all sin. “Neither 
pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall be¬ 
lieve on me through their word ; that they all may be 
one ; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they 
also may be one in us ; I in them, and thou in me, that 
they may be made perfect in one,” John xvii, 20-23. 
“I bow my knees unto the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, that he would grant you that ye, 
being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to 
comprehend, w r ith all saints, what is the breadth, and 
length, and depth, and height, and to know the love of 
Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled 
with all the fulness of God,” Eph. iii, 14, &c. “ The 

very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray 
God, your whole spirit, soul, and body may be pre¬ 
served blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ,” 1 Thess. v, 23. “ Always labouring fervently 

for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and com¬ 
plete in all the will of God,” Col. iv, 12. 

Now I cannot doubt, (1.) But entire sanctification is 
embraced in these prayers. Nor, (2.) That any thing 
that we are authorized to pray for, either by precept or 
example, is attainable. 

In relation to prayers for entire sanctification, Dr 
Snodgrass says, “ It is admitted, that all such prayers 
if offered in sincerity, will be answered. But the 
question to be determined is, when will they be 
answered?”* Well, let the doctor prove , by the 

* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 64. 


380 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


testimony of Scripture, that they are not in any case 
to be answered until after death , and we will then 
yield up these passages, as giving us no support. In¬ 
deed, this will go far toward settling the whole contro¬ 
versy. And this we insist he is bound to do. These 
prayers are couched in the same language as all the 
prayers of the Scriptures which were expected to be 
answered in the present life, and it certainly devolves 
upon him to show the grounds of the difference which 
he makes between them. He wholly assumes, with¬ 
out proof, that these prayers are of the class that God 
“ has begun to answer, but the set time to answer fully 
has not yet arrived.”* 

But not feeling quite satisfied with this method of 
disposing of one of these passages, (1 Thess. v, 23,) 
the doctor proceeds “ to a critical examination of its 
meaning thus :—“ It represents him as asking, not 
only that God would sanctify them wholly, but that 
their whole soul, body, and spirit might be preserved 
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
It is not to be doubted, that this language is capable 
of being so interpreted as to make it express his desire, 
that they might, in the first place, be brought into a state 
of perfect sanctification, and then be kept in that state 
until the coming of the Saviour to remove them at 
death.”f 

Indeed, sir, “this language” is not only “ capable 
of being so interpreted,” but this is its legitimate 
meaning. And it may be fairly doubted whether 
any one who had not a theory in his eye, independ¬ 
ent of the sense of Scripture, would give the lan¬ 
guage any other c6nstruction. 

Our author proceeds :—“ But the difficulty attending 
this interpretation, to the advocate of perfection, is, 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 66. + Ibid., p. 67. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


381 


that, if admitted to be true, it proves too much. In 
words immediately following the prayer, the apostle 
adds, ‘Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will 
do it.’ This was an absolute and unconditional pro¬ 
mise, in which the faithfulness of God was pledged, in 
the most formal and solemn manner, for the bestow- 
ment of what the prayer contemplated upon all those 
on whose behalf it was offered. There could be no 
failure, in the case of any one of their number whom 
God had effectually called ; so that, if sinless perfec¬ 
tion in this world was the thing which the prayer con¬ 
templated, it follows that this perfection was attained 
by all the true followers of Christ in Thessalonica,—• 
which is more than the advocates of the doctrine them¬ 
selves would be willing to admit.”* 

We deny that the promise is “absolute and uncon¬ 
ditional.” Let the eye run over the language which 
precedes the twenty-third verse, beginning with verse 
16. Here we have, “Pray without ceasing—Quench 
not the Spirit—Hold fast that which is good—Abstain 
from all appearance of evil.” Are here no conditions ? 
The words upon which our author bases his strong 
conclusion that the promise is “ absolute and uncondi¬ 
tional,” only prove that God would certainly be faithful 
on his part , and this we rejoice to believe as firmly as 
Dr. Snodgrass can. 

But he says, “ There could be no failure of any one 
of their number—so that if sinless perfection in this 
world was the thing which the prayer contemplated, it 
follows that this perfection was attained by all,” &c. 
No, sir. It only follows from the language of the 
passage that entire sanctification was attainable “ by 
af the true followers of Christ in Thessalonica.” This 
i ill, and thus much is obvious enough. 

* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 67, 68. 


332 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Dr. Woods takes similar ground upon this point with 
Dr. Snodgrass, and an answer to one is an answer to 
both. There is, however, one view of the subject upon 
which Dr. W. more strongly insists. “ Prayer,” he 
says, “ for any good plainly implies that the good is 
not already obtained. For, if obtained, why should it 
be prayed for?” And hence he concludes, that it 
would be improper for any person in a state of entire 
sanctification still to pray for that good. There is no 
difficulty in this. We hold not to a state of sanctifica¬ 
tion in this life that admits of no growth, and renders 
the subject of it impeccable. He may ever pray for 
more and more of the image of God—of the love of 
God shed abroad in his heart—of all the graces of the 
Spirit—and for continued victory over the world, the 
flesh, and the devil. He may, indeed he is bound to 
thank God for the degrees of sanctification he has re¬ 
ceived, but must never forget to ask for more. 

5. Lastly. I assert instances of entire sanctification 
in proof of its attainableness. 

If it can be proved from the Scriptures that there 
have been persons entirely sanctified, or perfectly holy, 
it will not be doubted but such a state is still attainable. 
And I shall proceed in this investigation upon the prin¬ 
ciple that the words perfect, blameless, entire, and the 
like, are to be understood in their literal sense, unless 
the nature of the case is such as that a restricted mean¬ 
ing must be supposed. But where efforts have been 
made to prove that these terms are, in any of the in¬ 
stances cited, necessarily restricted, I shall give all the 
reasons of our opponents due consideration. 

First. We may premise, that men of this class are 
recognised by the sacred writers as living upon earth. 
The psalmist says, “ Blessed are the undefiled in the 
way, perfect of the way,) who walk in the 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


383 


law of the Lord,” Psa. cxix, 1. Again he says, “ He 
that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me,” 
Psa. ci, 6. And Solomon says, “ The upright shall 
dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it,” 
Prov. ii, 21. Our Saviour says, “ Blessed are the purr 
in heart, for they shall see God,” Matt, v, 8. Professor 
Robinson interprets oi /catiapoi rrj Kapdia, pure in heart; 
“ sincere , upright , void of evil.” (See Lexicon.) And 
Parkhurst , “ clean, pure, in a spiritual sense, from the 
pollution and guilt of sin.” (See Lexicon.) “Herein 
is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness 
in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we 
in this world,” 1 John iv, 17. 

Secondly. There is a class of passages which speak 
of a state of entire sanctification as appropriate to the 
present state of being. The psalmist says, “ Create 
in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit 
within me,” Psa. li, 10; and adds in the thirteenth 
verse, “Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; 
and sinners shall be converted unto thee.” From this 
it seems evident that the psalmist must have thought 
of living to do good in the world, after he should have 
“ a clean heart and a right spirit.” 

And the prophet Ezekiel says in God’s name, “ Then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean,” &c.; “ And cause you to walk in my statutes, 
and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them,” Ezek. 
xxxvi, 25-27. 

St. Peter represents our election to be “through 
sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience ,” 1 Pet. i, 2, 
“ elg vnaicoriv ; that is, in order that they should obey 
the gospel.”* In all these cases, and many others 
which might be quoted, sanctification is represented as 
a qualification for the great duties which are to be done 
* Dr. Bloomfield. See Greek Testament, with English notes, in loc. 


384 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


in the present world, and, consequently, cannot be un¬ 
derstood as only to be attained at death. 

Thirdly. Particular instances may be alleged of 
persons who were said to be perfect , blameless , up¬ 
right , &c. Enoch, Elijah, Daniel, and others, are repre 
sented as free from sin—without offence before God; 
and of Zacharias and Elisabeth, it is said that “they 
were both righteous before God, walking in all the 
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” 
Luke i, 6. 

How one of the greatest authorities with our oppo¬ 
nents is obliged to shuffle and shift his positions in 
order to get along with these passages, may be seen 
in the following specimen from Turretin :— 

“If any are said in Scripture to have fulfilled the 
commandments of God, and to have loved God with 
the whole heart, and to have been perfect, as is said 
of Noah, (Gen. vi, 9,) of David, (Psa. cxix, 10,) of 
Josiah, (2 Kings xxiii, 25,) of Asa, (2 Chron. xv, 17,) 
of Zacharias and Elisabeth, (Luke i, 6,) and of others, 
this is to be understood not absolutely and without 
limitation as a legal perfection 1 of love and obedience, 
both in degree and extent, as that would be inconsistent 
with the sins which are attributed to them. 2 But it is 
to be understood in a limited sense as an evangelical 
perfection which indicates an obedience sincere and 
without hypocrisy, 3 or in a comparative sense both in 
respect to the wicked who are dead in sin, and in re¬ 
spect to those who are less holy. 4 If Zacharias and 

1 We claim not for them, “ absolutely and without limitation, a legal 
perfection.” 

* Sins are attributed to some of them at a different time from that 
in which they are pronounced perfect. This is nothing to the case. 

3 Nearly right. 

4 Rarely so. God has an invariable standard of holiness. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION, 


385 


Elisabeth are said to be righteous evumov rov Qeov 
before God, this indicates, indeed, that their righteous¬ 
ness and piety were not clothed in false and hypocritical 
colours, such as could stand before men, but true and 
sincere, and approved themselves even to God. 5 But ii, 
cannot be inferred from this that they were absolutely 
without spot, since, in the same place, mention is made 
of the unbelief of Zacharias. 6 Nor is more to be un¬ 
derstood when they are said to have walked in the 
commandments of God blameless, since this means 
only that they lived without blame and reproach in the 
eyes of men. 7 It is one thing to be absolutely sinless, 
but another to be blameless. 8 Paul requires in a bishop 
that he should be irreprehensible, which is the same 
as to be blameless; not that he should be without 
sin, which is impossible, but without blame and re¬ 
proach.” 

This commentary is a very instructive one. While 
the ground for which we contend is really all conceded, 
the learned author, lest he should be found quite wide 
of the Augustinian theory, turns around, and makes 
explanations which amount to a flat contradiction of 
what he had before said. 

Much pains is taken by our opponents to show that 
in several instances the most distinguished of the 
patriarchs fell into sins. Dr. Pond urges this fact 
against us thus :—“ The imperfections of such men 

6 Mark this! 

* This “ unbelief” occurred after it was said he was “ righteous,” 
&c. A righteous man may fall, either partially or wholly. 

7 How is this ? Just above our author gives evutuov tov Qeov, be. 
fore God , its true sense. “ Their righteousness and piety,” he says, 
“ approved themselves even to God.” 

s A good distinction. In the sense of this learned author we do 
not hold an “ absolutely sinless” state attainable in this lift. But we 
believe a “ blameless” state is attainable. 

9b 


386 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


as Abram, and Lot, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, 
and Aaron, and David, and Solomon, and Peter, and 
Barnabas, are all faithfully recorded by the pen of in¬ 
spiration. Such men as Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and 
Job, and Daniel, and Paul, and John, and James, we 
hear confessing, and oft bewailing and lamenting, their 
sins. In short, we read of no sinlessly perfect man in 
the Bible, with the single exception of the man Christ 
Jesus. But if patriarchs, and prophets, and apostles— 
those holy men of old, who spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost—were not perfect, where are we to 
look for perfection on this side the grave ?”* Perhaps, 
indeed, nowhere after the good doctor’s fashion ! 

It is easy to deal in wholesale assertions, and to 
generalize upon any topic; but to go into particulars, 
and sustain general conclusions by particular facts, is 
not always so easy a task. It would be hard for our 
author to sustain a charge of moral delinquency against 
at least some of the names he has mentioned. And 
besides, the sins they committed, and confessed, and 
mourned over, are nothing to the question of the attain¬ 
ableness of a state of perfection. If an instance can be 
found in the Bible of one individual who, at any period 
of his life, is truly said to Jbe perfect, blameless, up¬ 
right, free from sin, or entirely sanctified, the point is 
clearly gained. It proves the attainableness of such a 
state. The previous sins or subsequent relapses of 
such make not in the least against our theory, for we 
believe not, as I have said repeatedly, in a state of 
perfection which implies impeccability, or certain per¬ 
severance in that state to the last. 

We doubt not, indeed, but the same grace which 
could preserve the soul of a Christian unblameable in 
love for one moment could do the same for an hour, a 
* Biblical Repository, vol. i, pp. 50. 51. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


387 


day, a year, and through a long life. But this grace 
will not be vouchsafed to the unwatchful, or the negli¬ 
gent. A holy man may lose his vigilance, and so leave 
room for the entrance of temptations, and, through their 
influence, fall away from God. But would this prove 
that he was never holy ? We think not. I could give 
illustrations, but they are scarcely necessary. 

St. Paul has been adduced as an instance of Chris- 
tian perfection. But our opponents will not award to 
the great apostle the purity claimed for him. They 
allege his own declarations to the contrary. I will 
now proceed to inquire how far these go to prove that 
Paul was really an imperfect Christian—destitute, at 
least, of some of the great elements of Christian cha¬ 
racter which he urges upon others. I will give the 
argument of Dr. Snodgrass at full length, that it may 
have its full force. 

“ In the third chapter of his Epistle to the Philip- 
pians, the apostle gives the most extended and minute 
account of himself, which his writings contain, as to 
the progress which he had made in his Christian 
course. He introduces himself to the notice of his 
readers, as having started in a ‘ race' and as pressing 
on toward the goal, with a view of securing the prize. 
He supposes the same circumstances to be present 
which distinguished the natural race, as run at the 
celebration of the ancient games. He supposes his 
course to be marked out and prescribed in the gospel: 
he regards Jesus Christ as having ‘ apprehended,’ or 
laid hold on him, to draw him into this course, and to 
support and urge him forward in the contest: he has 
his eye fixed on a mark , which he calls ‘ the mark for 
the prize’—a goal which he must reach before the prize 
could be awarded : and, in connection with the mark, 
is the prize itself—the crown of life—the incorruptible 


388 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


crown, which every winner in this race will receive, as 
the reward of his victory. I need not occupy the time 
of the reader in showing that ‘ the mark’ for this prize 
is perfection in holiness ; because this is the only mark, 
or termination of his course, to which the Christian is 
allowed to have respect. This is the only goal to 
which he is commanded to run—the only point at 
which he is permitted to stop—the only line, beyond 
which there is nothing more to be acquired or done. 
As a Christian, there is nothing else which he is bound 
to do, than to seek and obtain a state of entire con¬ 
formity to the image and will of God, both in heart 
and in life. Having arrived at this state, his work is 
finished—he can run no further—his obligations are 
all discharged—he has come up to the mark, and is 
ready for the prize.”* 

It will be perceived that the whole force of this argu¬ 
ment depends upon the construction Dr. S. gives “ the 
mark” at which the apostle was pressing. Now, if he 
be allowed to assume that this mark is that “ perfection 
in holiness” which we contend is attainable in this life, 
and which we think St. Paul had already attained, he 
most certainly derives strong support from the passage 
under consideration. But he has no right to this as¬ 
sumption. Confident as he is that “this is the only 
goal to which he is commanded to run,” I beg leave to 
show that there is no evidence of it whatever. 

In the first place, there is no conclusive evidence 
that the okottov , mark , refers to the goal at all. 

The learned Peirce says :—“ ‘ Kara okottov , toward 
the mark'] I have not met with any good authorities 
to prove that OKonog signifies the same as rep^a, a 
goal ; and therefore I choose rather to take it in the 
sense in which it is commonly read, and so render it 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 37-39. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 389 

according to my aim or design. Nor is it necessary 
in allegories to be always confined to terms.”* 

And Dr. Clarke renders Kara cnconov Slcjkg), I pursue 
along the line : and adds this note :—“ This is a re¬ 
ference to the white line that marked the ground in the 
stadium, from the starting place to the goal , on which 
the runners were obliged to keep their eye fixed ; for 
they who transgressed, or went beyond this line, did 
not run lawfully , and were not crowned, even though 
they got first to the goal.”f 

The preposition Kara , in the common version ren¬ 
dered toward , followed by an accusative, as in the 
text, often signifies according to, conformably to, after, 
along, all along. See Matt, ix, 29 ; xxiii, 3 ; Luke ii 
20; John viii, 15; Acts v, 15; Rom. xi, 24 So that 
a literal rendering of Kara okottov 6lo)kcj em ro fipabeiov, 
is, I follow on toward the prize, along, or conforma¬ 
bly to the mark. 

But if it be admitted that by okottov, mark, the apostle 
means the goal, still it is a question what attainments 
are to be considered as implied in the goal. The 
Westminster divines consider this goal and the prize 
as identical. Their language is : “ * The mark ’—The 
prize of heavenly glory, for which we run in the holy 
race set before us. 1 Cor. ix, 24, &c.” So far, then, 
the evidence of the passage in question alfords no help 
to the cause of Dr. Snodgrass. But let us hear him 
further:— 

“Let it now be considered, that, when this memo¬ 
rable passage was written, the apostle had been running 
the race, which he describes, for a period of something 
like thirty years. He was not far from the point, at 

* Paraphrase and Notes on the place. 

+ Commentary on the place. 

t See Robinson’s and Parkhurst’s Lexicons. 


390 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


which he afterward said, ‘ I have finished my course.* 
In about three years more, he was to reach the goal, 
and obtain the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, 
the righteous Judge, had promised to give him. And, 
under these circumstances, what does he say concern¬ 
ing his progress ? ‘ Not as though I had already 

attained , either were already perfect; but I follow 
after ’—‘ Brethren, I count not myself to have appre¬ 
hended; but this one thing Ido, forgetting those things 
which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things 
which are before, I press toward the mark.’ As if he 
had said—‘ After all the progress I have made in the 
divine life, there are other and still higher attainments 
before me—I pretend not to have reached the point 
at which I am aiming, but only to be approaching it— 
all that I can claim is, that, instead of being satisfied 
with past efforts, I am intent upon still higher degrees 
of proficiency and success.’ ”* 

It is sufficiently evident that the apostle uses the 
word perfect here with reference to the crown of 
martyrdom, or perhaps the resurrection state. (See 
verses 9-11.) Diodati paraphrases the passage thus : 
“ Let no man believe that I am as a divine man or an 
angel in the world, and that I am arrived to the end of 
my race and combats.” 

Dr. Clarke paraphrases ydrj TEreXeicdyai, nor am 1 
yet perfect; “ I am not yet crowned in consequence 
of having suffered martyrdom and proceeds : “lam 
quite satisfied that the apostle here alludes to the 
Olympic garnet; and the word rers^dofiat is the 
proof; for TeXeioOyvai is spoken of those who have 
completed their race, reached the goal, and are honour¬ 
ed with the prize.” This he proves from Philo. Then 
he shows by examples from Clemens Alexandrinus, 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 39, 40. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


391 


Basil, CEcumenius, and Eusebius, that “reXeiojoig 
signified martyrdom.” In conclusion, this learned 
commentator says :— 

“ St. Paul, therefore, is not speaking here of any 
deficiency in his own grace or spiritual state ; he does 
not mean by not being yet perfect , that he had a body 
oj sin and death cleaving to him, and was still pol¬ 
luted with indiuelling sin, as some have most falsely 
and dangerously imagined : he speaks of his not having 
terminated his course by martyrdom, which he knew 
would, sooner or later, be the case. This he con¬ 
sidered as the reXeioxjig, or perfection of his whole 
career; and was led to view every thing as imperfect 
or unfinished till this had taken place.” 

That this passage was not designed to be considered 
as denying the fact of the perfection of Paul’s Chris¬ 
tian character, is plain from what he says in verse 15, 
“ Let us, therefore, as many of us as be perfect, be thus 
minded.” Here he explicitly lays claim to perfection. 

St. Augustine gives us a clear and consistent view 
of the apostle’s use of the word perfection in these two 
places, thus :—“ Perfecti et non perfecti: perfecti 
viatores nondum perfecti possessores— Perfect and not 
perfect: perfect travellers, but not perfect possessors.”* 

Now what we contend for is, that St. Paul was a 
perfect traveller, and that we all may be in this re¬ 
spect like him. A perfect possessor he was not, but 
hoped to be such in due time. If all this father says 
upon perfection were equally luminous, it would pro¬ 
bably have been much better for the church. 

Another argument to prove that St. Paul was not 
entirely sanctified, Dr. Snodgrass founds upon Heb. 
xii, 1. He proceeds thus He [Paul] unites with 
the Hebrews in saying, ‘ Let us lay aside every weight, 
* Sermo. 169. 


392 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


and the sin which doth so easily beset us’—regarding 
himself, in common with them, as exposed to the influ¬ 
ence of besetting sins.”* 

This is an argument of no force. We have seen, on 
a similar occasion, that nothing can be concluded from 
the use of the pronoun in the first person plural, as 
this form is commonly used by writers and speakers, 
when the speaker is not to be understood as included 
YiVTTegiGraTOv dyagrtav is rendered by the best critics, 
the well-circumstanced sin , and may be supposed to 
refer to the sin to which the Hebrews were most ex¬ 
posed.! 

Professor Stuart says :—“ The ayapna [sm] which 
most easily beset the Hebrews, was undoubtedly apos- 
tacy , or defection from their Christian profession; against 
which the whole epistle is directed. They were under 
peculiar temptations to this sin, in consequence of the 
persecutions which they endured, and of their former 
prejudices in favour of Judaism.”! 

And will Dr. Snodgrass say that these Hebrew 
Christians, and St. Paul with them, apostatized daily? 
It can scarcely be a good cause that depends upon such 
arguments as this. 

Dr. S. proceeds :—“ He records, in his Second 
Letter to the Corinthians, that his tendency to spirit¬ 
ual pride was such, that there was given to him ‘ a 
thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet 
him.’ ”§ Dr. S. does not precisely follow the old 
error, that “the thorn in the flesh” was “concupi¬ 
scence.” But whatever it was, it was designed to 
cure in Paul a tendency to spiritual pride; or if not 

* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 40. 

t See Clarke’s Commentary on the place, and Bretschneider’s 
Lexicon on the word. 

t Commentary, in loc. § Scripture Doctrine, p. 40. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


393 


exactly to cure the evil, as it could not, according to 
l)r. S., be wholly cured until death, yet to punish him 
for it, or perhaps to keep it down a little. 

Calvin says upon this passage:—“ Here we see a 
man who had conquered infinite dangers, torments, 
and other evils; had triumphed over all the enemies 
of Christ, and had shaken off the fear of death, and 
renounced the world ; yet had not wholly subdued his 
propensity to pride. Nay, he was still engaged in so 
dreadful a conflict with it, that he could not conquer 
without himself being beaten and buffeted.” 

All this is mere assumption. There is no proof in 
this text, or any other, that Paul “ had not wholly sub¬ 
dued his propensity to pride” 'Iva py vnepaipopai 
Lest I should he exalted above measure , or, which is 
more literal, that I might not he over exalted , by no 
means proves that there was still remaining in him a 
sinful propensity to spiritual pride. All that the pas¬ 
sage proves, is, that he was liable to be too much 
elevated, and to prevent it, God permitted him to 
suffer some severe affliction. And who knows that 
the preventive was not effectual ? If Dr. S. does, he 
will do us a favour by informing us where he received 
his information. 

But let us hear the final accusation brought by the 
good doctor against the great apostle :—“ And who 
can believe that the sharp contention between him and 
Barnabas would ever have occurred, if his mind and 
affections had been in a state of entire sanctification ?”* 

As to this, Dr. S. must give me some further light 
before I can conclude with any safety that this “ sharp 
contention” affords any evidence that St. Paul’s “ mind 
and affections” had not “ been in a state of entire 
sanctification.” I must know either that Paul had the 
* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 41. 


394 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


wrong side in the quarrel, and that he took this side 
against good reason, or that he prosecuted the contro¬ 
versy in an unchristian spirit. All contention is not 
sin. But I need not enlarge. 

Was ever an argument put forth by a Christian 
divine so entirely baseless as the whole of this of 
Dr. S. to prove that St. Paul had within him unsanc¬ 
tified affections? We are bound to criminate no one 
without evidence which excludes reasonable doubt, 
and certainly we should not fasten upon the holy 
apostle the charge of sin without the clearest evidence. 
And what evidence has been adduced? Passages are 
brought forward, which, rightly construed, imply no 
moral defect in the apostle ; but which will not admit 
of the construction put upon them by Dr. S. without 
violence to all correct rules of interpretation. He 
often depends upon the mere sound of a word without 
any reference to the connection, much less to the ori¬ 
ginal. If this is the true mode of discussing any dis¬ 
puted point, I am yet totally uninstructed upon the 
subject. 

It is, however, but fair to state that Dr. S. makes 
his principal dependance upon the seventh chapter of 
Romans. As I have already fully discussed this 
chapter, and shown, I trust, that the apostle is not 
there speaking of his own spiritual state after his con¬ 
version, I need say no more upon that subject. 

Let us now see if there is not good reason, on the 
other hand, for believing that Paul was, in the sense 
in which that character is spoken of in the Scriptures, 
a perfect Christian. We will take the apostle’s own 
representations of himself, for certainly he would make 
no false professions. Says he,—“ I am crucified w.'th 
Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ 
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


395 


flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God,” Gal. ii, 20. 
“Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and 
justly, and unblameably, we behaved ourselves among 
you that believe,” 1 Thess. ii, 10. 

Again, let it be observed, that the apostle sets him¬ 
self up for an example to others without any reserve 
He says :—“ Those things which ye have both learned, 
and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the 
God of peace shall be with you,” Phil, iv, 9. “ Bre¬ 

thren, be followers together of me, and mark them 
which walk so as ye have us for an ensample,” Phil, 
iii, 17. “ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of 

Christ,” 1 Cor. xi, 1. 

Now need any further evidence be sought to prove 
our point? Could the apostle use such language as 
this if he was capitally deficient in any of the attributes 
of a perfect Christian ? And should any in these times 
employ the same language in relation to their own 
religious character and experience, how long would it 
be ere they would be branded as perfectionists by such 
divines as Drs. Snodgrass and Woods, and declared 
by the Princeton and Christian Reviews mad enthu¬ 
siasts ? 

If then St. Paul has spoken truly concerning him¬ 
self, he was “crucified with Christ”—lived “holily, 
and justly, and unblameably”—was “ perfect”—and so 
followed Christ , that he could safely admonish all to 
follow him in like manner. This is a clear develop¬ 
ment of Christian perfection. And I suppose our 
opponents will not pretend to dispute our conclusion, 
provided we can maintain our premises. That is, if 
we can prove that Paul was an instance of the perfec¬ 
tion we contend for, we may conclude the state attain¬ 
able. The conclusion follows so obviously from the 
premises, that those who oppose the doctrine of Chris- 


396 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


tian perfection direct their efforts altogether to the 
refutation of the premises. They undertake to show 
that St. Paul was not a perfect Christian. With what 
success they have prosecuted their argument we have 
seen. I now leave the whole which has been pre¬ 
sented, pro and con , for the candid to examine and 
decide upon, according to their honest convictions. I 
have endeavoured to present the whole argument in as 
clear a light as possible, and hope I have not been 
guilty of using needless severity in my reflections 
upon views and arguments which I have judged it 
necessary to oppose. 

Here I leave the controversial part of this discussion, 
and proceed to the more agreeable work of presenting 
its experimental and practical parts. 


LECTURE XVIII. 

THE WAY TO THE ATTAINMENT OF CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 

“ Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest 
see the glory of God ?” John xi, 40. 

The subject of Christian perfection is eminently a 
practical one. It has much to do with the heart and 
the life. And if I have succeeded in the preceding 
lectures in obviating the objections which are brought 
against this doctrine, and in adducing clear and con¬ 
clusive Scripture proof of its truth, still but a part of 
my object is accomplished. It now remains more 
particularly to point out the way and the means of its 
attainment, and to urge the motives for immediate 
action. We have done but little when we have 
merely admitted that Christian perfection is a specula- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


397 


tive or doctrinal truth. The next, and by far the most 
difficult matter, is to feel a personal interest in the 
truth ;—to realize what it is to us—to feel that it in¬ 
finitely concerns ourselves. To bring the subject home, 
then; to labor to produce conviction of the present need 
we all stand in of entire sanctification; and give ap¬ 
propriate directions to such as feel this conviction, shall 
be my leading object in the present lecture and those 
which follow. 

The purpose of the present lecture shall be to show 
by what means the grace of entire sanctification may 
be attained. 

I may presume here, first , that it has been suffi¬ 
ciently proved that God has provided for the entire 
sanctification of his people in the present life. And, 
secondly , if so, that we are all personally and individu¬ 
ally interested in this provision. If we credit these 
propositions, and are at the same time conscious that 
this great w'ork has never been effected in our hearts, 
can we but feel solemn conviction of our need of it— 
of the importance of employing such efforts as are the 
appointed and appropriate means of its attainment ? 
It is for the special benefit of such as have this convic 
don that I shall now proceed to consider the steps to 
be taken in order to the attainment of that triumph over 
sin, and that complete renovation of the soul, implied 
in Christian perfection. 

1. Endeavour to have a definite idea of the thing. 

What we see indistinctly we are likely to feel little 
personal interest in, and to seek waveringly. How 
much effort is lost for the want of a definite point! 
This is true in every thing. The worldling fixes his 
eye upon wealth in general, and the politician upon the 
Iriumph of his party, or his own aggrandizement. But 
those who succeed in either of these departments of 


398 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


action do not content themselves with the general ob¬ 
ject. They fix their eye upon some distinct point, as 
involving the general object, and absolutely essential 
to it. To this they direct their energies, never losing 
sight of it for a moment. All they do, directly or in¬ 
directly, bears upon this one point. This is one grand 
secret of success. The man who aims at nothing in 
particular, however strongly he may feel impressed 
with the importance of some general object, will never 
accomplish much. His efforts will be various, hesi¬ 
tating, and often conflicting. He will spend his life in 
fruitless toil, and live and die under the influence of 
sad disappointment and chagrin. 

What, then, is the definite object, in relation to the 
subject under consideration, upon which the attention 
must be fixed ? The object is entire sanctification. 
This, as we have seen, consists in the destruction of 
sin , and the renewing of the soul in the image of God. 
Now of this we must have a distinct view. We must 
be able, in our conceptions, to separate it from every 
thing not necessarily or immediately connected with it. 
We must view it as distinct from simple justification 
and regeneration on the one hand, and from the resur¬ 
rection and the glorified state upon the other. If we 
confound entire sanctification with simple regeneration, 
or if we give them an immediate connection, so that 
the latter cannot exist without the former, the evidence 
of regeneration will obviate the necessity, and indeed 
preclude the possibility, of special efforts in pursuit of 
this entire sanctification. And on the other hand, it 
will be impossible for us to make rational efforts to attain 
now what we in our conceptions connect with the state 
of the glorified. Let us then fix our eye upon this one 
point— the reduction of the whole man to the govern¬ 
ment and guidance of the divine will. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


399 


But it must not be supposed that the nature of this 
work, its evidences, and the manner of its accomplish¬ 
ment, can be fully understood before it is experienced. 
Too many are waiting to know how these things can 
he , before they make a serious effort to obtain the 
blessing. As in the lower stages of Christian expe 
rience so in this—we must take many things upon 
trust; we must “ walk by faith, not by sight.” And 
if we must know the whole way with the clearness of 
intuition, or of present consciousness, before we will 
take a step, God will doubtless leave us in our present 
ignorance with regard to the whole matter. If I wish 
to visit a distant point concerning which I know no¬ 
thing excepting from the report of travellers, it would 
be an extravagant demand for me to require perfect 
information with regard to all the various appearances 
of the way, and all the fortunes of the journey, before 
I would venture to set off. It would be quite enough 
for me to have satisfactory evidence that the desired 
point was accessible—that the way was feasible—and 
that the exercise of my natural powers of body and 
mind would in due time probably bring me there. 
With this evidence before me, would it be rational for 
me to sit still and speculate upon circumstances which 
I never can fully understand until they come under my 
own observation ? If I should pursue this course, when 
some important interest would be put in jeopardy by 
every moment’s delay—if I must reach the place by a 
certain time, or fail to discharge some great moral or 
social obligation, or lose some great advantage—if I 
must execute a commission, or prove my title to an 
estate, by a time so near that my utmost diligence will 
be barely sufficient to meet, what folly and reckless¬ 
ness would there be in my wasting time in idle and 
fruitless speculations ! The illustration is of easy ap- 


400 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE 01-' 


plication. We are told that we must be holy—sancti¬ 
fied wholly—and that there is a way to this desired 
point which is practicable and safe; that many have 
travelled it, and have sent back a good report concern' 
ing the goodly land and the way to it; and we are 
assured that, if we take the right course and press on 
we shall certainly reach the goal. Now what more 
need we desire ? Does not our asking more, and our 
delaying under such circumstances, prove but too 
clearly that we do not sufficiently appreciate the object, 
or that we have an aversion to the way ? 

There is a difference, then, between a clear and de¬ 
finite notion of the object in view, and a comprehensive 
and circumstantial knowledge of the object with all its 
adjuncts, antecedents, and consequents. The former 
we must have—the latter we have no reason to expect, 
and shall seek for in vain. 

2. A certain amount of feeling upon the subject is 
necessary. 

The excitement that is required is represented by 
the sensations of hunger and thirst. Our Saviour says, 
“ Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righte¬ 
ousness, for they shall be filled.” Our efforts in the 
pursuit of an attainable object are in proportion to the 
strength of our desires. If our desires are strong and 
constant, we pursue the object with undeviating and 
constant exertion; but as our feelings fluctuate, our 
efforts are generally unsteady. Indeed, to be properly 
awake upon the great subject under consideration is to 
overcome the greatest part of the difficulties which 
beset the way. The anxious mind is wise to devise, 
and prompt to execute; but the unfeeling heart sees a 
thousand difficulties where there is none, and, like a 
stagnant pool in a dead calm, remains motionless. 
Apathy is the greatest obstacle to the pursuit of holi- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


401 


ness—it is worse, if possible, than a spirit of fixed 
opposition: for resistance often recoils upon the ex¬ 
cited sensibilities, and produces a reaction of the feel¬ 
ings ; but insensibility remains the same—holding the 
soul spell-bound in the adamantine chain of a decep 
tive security. 

And is there not a dreadful amount of apathy in the 
church upon the subject of entire sanctification ? Let 
us look around upon our own branch of the church, 
and make observation. We hold to the attainableness 
of this high state of grace; but, how large a proportion 
of us are anxiously seeking after it? We believe it, 
prove it, contend earnestly for it, but, alas ! how many 
of us have attained it, or are restlessly pursuing it ? 
Where is the evidence that we are “hungering and 
thirsting after righteousness”—that we “ expect to be 
made perfect in love in this life,” and that we are 
“ groaning after it ?” This is an absorbing inquiry, and 
the result to which it brings us is alarming. If God 
says, “Wo to them that are at ease in Zion !” on what 
ground do many of us bless ourselves in our imaginary 
security, or fancy that we are really safe, merely be¬ 
cause we have no troublesome anxieties about our own 
souls, or the souls of others ? “ Come up, 0 breath, 
and breathe upon these slain, that they may live!” 

Some may be disposed to query here, how we are to 
obtain the tide of feeling which will push itself out into 
all appropriate exertions in pursuit of the desired good. 
“ With God is the residue of the Spirit,” and the ne¬ 
cessary excitement is the product of the Spirit, giving 
effect to the word. Who, then, it is sometimes ob¬ 
jected, is to blame for not having the anxious desire for 
holiness, which the Spirit of God alone can beget in the 
soul ? 

In answer to this, I would say, that I assume here 
26 


402 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


that God is not backward in doing his part in this 
matter. A careful analysis of our mental states, and 
their causes, will show that our want of sensibility is 
the resul of violence done both to former emotions and 
to the Spirit of God. We do not feel, because we 
have been unwilling to feel. God has often aroused 
us from our slumbers, but we have listened to the 
syren voice of the tempter, and sunk down again into 
our wonted repose. But admitting all this, say you, 
how shall I once more feel the inw r ard drawings of the 
Spirit—the softening influences of truth—the meltings 
of a broken heart ? The answer is ready: Remove 
from your imagination the phantom that you have al¬ 
ready entered the port of peace—let the world dazzle 
you no more—uncase your soul, and let the light and 
heat of evangelical truth fall upon its tender fibres—- 
and finally, cry mightily to God for deliverance from the 
arms of your spiritual Delilah before you go bound hand 
and foot into the hands of the Philistines, to grind at 
their mill, and to be to them an object of derision. 
Until you shall have done at least as much as this, it 
is vain, and worse than vain, to ask why it is that God 
has left you in this state of apathy and insensibility. 
The reason is plain :—you have invited counter-excite¬ 
ments—you have grieved the Holy Spirit—you have 
armed yourselves against his influences. Where is 
the mystery, then, in your present spiritual condition— 
in your state of insensibility and apparent incapability 
of being properly stimulated by the great motives of 
the gospel ? But remove the cause, and in the mercy 
of God the effect will cease. God yet waits to be 
gracious—his hand is stretched out still—and he is as 
ready as ever to soften, draw, and mould, the submis¬ 
sive and yielding heart. I must, however, hasten to 
another particular. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


403 


3. We must exercise feelings of contrition. 

A deep and permanent godly sorrow must take pos¬ 
session of our hearts. This feeling will arise from a 
conviction of hidden corruptions and inward unlikeness 
to God—will consist in a perfect self-abhorrence and 
self-renunciation. If we have not wickedly departed 
from God, or backslidden in heart, it will not imply 
condemnation or a sense of guilt. It is a feeling which 
is entirely consistent with a sense of the divine favour, 
or the evidence of pardon. It is a self-loathing, arising 
from clear views of the holiness of God, and the deep 
taint of human depravity. The experience of Job fur¬ 
nishes a fine illustration of the repentance of a justified 
person who seeks a clean heart. Before God, by a 
mysterious train of providences and the revelation of 
himself, had led him to a full view of the hidden cor¬ 
ruptions of his nature, he justified himself. But what 
were his subsequent views ? Saith he, “ I have heard 
of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye 
seeth thee ; wherefore I abhor myself, and repent as in 
dust and ashes.” His former views of God had been 
comparatively obscure, and he had thought proportion- 
ably well of himself. But a clear revelation of the 
holiness of the divine character brought him into the 
dust. We know not that even now he accuses himself 
of flagrant iniquity, but still he sees occasion for infinite 
self-abhorrence, and the most profound repentance. 
As says the poet:— 

“ I loathe myself when God I see, 

And into nothing fall.” 

It is true that this repentance can only be originated 
in the soul by the Spirit of God. But it is equally 
true its exercise is dependant upon volition, and hence 
it is a human duty as well as a divine grace. A sinner 
may feel remorse without his consent and against his 


404 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


will, but true godly sorrow is a voluntary state of the 
mind. It is the result of consent given to the claims 
of our rightful Sovereign—the fruit of cherished con¬ 
victions. The damned in hell will doubtless feel eter¬ 
nal remorse, but their dark bosoms will never be the 
seat of a single emotion of true godly sorrow. 

In seeking entire sanctification, we must pry into the 
secrets of our inmost souls. We must be willing, yea, 
desirous, to know the very worst of our case. The 
great deep of our hearts—all their hidden recesses— 
must be matters of toilsome scrutiny, and of painful 
solicitude. Our prayer must be like that of David, 
“ Search me, O God, and know my heart,” &c. And 
upon a full discovery of our real vileness, we shall lose 
sight of all the good we have ever done. We shall fall 
into our native nothingness. We shall hide our face in 
the dust—proclaim our sinfulness—and, losing all con¬ 
fidence in the flesh, we shall look about for some other 
sanctuary than our own righteousness. 

When Isaiah “ saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, 
high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple 
then he saw his own vileness, and was led to exclaim, 
“Wo is me! for I am undone; because I am a man 
of unclean lips, and I dwell among a people of unclean 
lips,” Isa. vi, 1, 5. When we seek for that true godly 
sorrow for our inward corruptions of which I am speak¬ 
ing, we should pray for a revelation to the eye of our 
faith of the glories and majesty of the divine character. 
We should study that character—we should turn our 
eyes from all beside, until, “ by beholding the glory of 
the Lord, we are changed into the same image as by 
the Spirit of the Lord.” 

The states of mind which I have brought to view 
will prepare the way for another, which occupies the 
highest place in the estimate, and without which all 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


405 


that we have previously noticed and urged will be of 
no consequence whatever. This I shall now pioceed 
to consider. 

4. The grand condition upon which our entire sanc¬ 
tification is suspended, and which must be met and 
discharged, is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 

We are sanctified as well as justified by faith, and 
in both instances faith is the same in nature. It has 
respect to the doctrines and facts, to the precepts, and 
to the promises, of the gospel. In relation to the doc¬ 
trines and facts it is credence , in relation to the pre¬ 
cepts assent , and in relation to the promises confidence. 
The great difference between the faith which justifies 
and that which sanctifies wholly, is, that the former 
contemplates simple pardon, or the cancelling of guilt; 
while the latter respects the destruction of inward sin, 
and the entire restoration of the divine image. 

I need not here discuss the subject of faith in gene¬ 
ral. It is very important, however, that the peculiari¬ 
ties of sanctifying faith should be well understood. 
For the want of this many stumble at the threshold, 
and do not come into the possession of the blessing 
they earnestly desire. 

First , then, this faith implies a perception of the 
sufficiency of the provisions of the gospel for the com¬ 
plete deliverance of the soul from sin, and of the spe¬ 
cial promise made of the accomplishment of the work 
for all that believe. 

I scarcely need urge that we shall not, that we can¬ 
not, rationally seek what we do not see provided and 
promised in the gospel. This may be assumed as a 
matter of course. The fact that some may have ob¬ 
tained perfect love without a distinct faith in the doc¬ 
trine of Christian perfection as we hold it, is not in the 
least against my position. In all such cases the subject 


406 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


must have seen this high attainment provided and pro¬ 
mised in the gospel, and must have sought it, though 
the name or the definition we employ may never have 
been used. Names are not always essential to things. 
And though we would adhere to Scriptural names, and 
must continue to believe this the safest and best way 
to preserve the identity of the things which they are 
used to signify, yet we doubt not but in numerous in¬ 
stances the things themselves are enjoyed and realized 
where, through the influence of unfortunate prejudices, 
the appropriate names are discarded. 

We must then see the provision made for our entire 
sanctification, and that God has explicitly promised 
this blessing. I have before discussed those passages 
where these provisions and promises are found, and 
need not here refer to them again. It is not difficult 
to gain assent to the general fact that there are such 
provisions and promises. The grand difficulty is in 
bringing the matter home to ourselves. This brings 
us to another point. 

Secondly. We must feel an inward confidence that 
these provisions are made for us. I can much more 
easily believe that “exceeding great and precious pro¬ 
mises” are made to the church in general, or the be¬ 
lieving in general, than I can that they are made to me 
—to my unworthy, wretched self. But the faith that 
brings the blessing of perfect love must so far honour 
the riches of divine grace as to regard the provision 
made for me, and made as truly for me as though there 
had not been another in the whole universe to need 
such provision. 

As Wesleyan Methodists, we all believe in the am¬ 
plitude of the gospel provisions. We believe that the 
blood of Christ can even now cleanse the soul from 
all sin. We contend for the truth of the doctrine. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


407 


nd rejoice to hear those who have experienced its 
power make profession of the great things God has 
done for them. But ah ! to come home to ourselves, 
how few of ns, comparatively, feel a personal interest 
in this great subject! How many, after all, seem to 
doubt whether it is indeed possible for them to attain 
to a state of entire sanctification ! We must, however, 
come to this. A general faith, indeed, has its use—it 
saves us Irom infidelity and universal skepticism; but 
it will not bring us into possession of the provisions of 
the gospel. “ Hast thou faith ? have it to thyself before 
God.” Come thou thyself near to the throne of the 
heavenly grace. Do not throw the whole world, nor 
the whole church, between thee and thy God; but ap¬ 
proach him with boldness—with humble confidence. 
Come into the King’s presence, and be assured he will 
reach thee the golden sceptre, and thou shall find favour 
and honour from him, whom thou hast too long grieved 
with thy slowness of heart to believe all that he hath 
spoken. But there is still a more difficult point to be 
gained before this faith is complete. 

Thirdlij. We must believe that this blessing is for 
us now. 

The faith that the blessing may be had some time 
or another—at some future indefinite period—will not 
prevail. It must contemplate the provision as withm 
our reach—as now at hand. It will not admit of delay 
—it knows no inconvenient season. It says, surely, 
“ Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salva¬ 
tion.” Its language is, “ Say not in thy heart, Who 
shall ascend into heaven ? (that is, to bring Christ down 
from above;) or, Who shall descend into the deep? 
(that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But 
what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy 
mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith 


408 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy 
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart 
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
saved,” Rom. x, 6-9. 

Here it should be remarked, 1. That the faith spoken 
tf is believing with the heart. And 2. It brings the 
blessing near, right home, and appropriates it. It does 
not contemplate the great salvation as so high or so 
profound, or so far away, that a long journey, or a 
difficult or doubtful process, is to intervene before the 
object can be gained. No : glory, and honour, and 
praise, to God and the Lamb for ever and ever, “ the 
word of faith is nigh thee —even in thy mouth and in 
thy heart!” Amen ! so let it be ! “ Even so ; come, 

Lord Jesus, come quickly.” 

This, I say, is the most difficult point of all to gain. 
Often the enemy entrenches himself here, and prepares 
for the grand encounter. At all points previously he had 
been forced to yield. The seeker after entire sanctifi¬ 
cation is enabled to believe such a blessing provided, 
and provided even for him; but the question is, when 
may he come into possession of it ? The enemy sug¬ 
gests, not quite yet —you are too unworthy—you are 
not yet prepared for it—you must feel more deeply the 
need of it—you must mourn and pray longer—you 
must wait patiently—circumstances are unfavourable— 
you must gather around you more helps—you must go 
somewhere, or do some great thing, before God will 
visit you with the great salvation. Now, if we stop 
and hesitate upon any of these points, hell triumphs, 
and we go out again to sea. But here is the very point 
where we are to honour God and confound the devil 
by believing—by crediting all God’s promises Hear 
the Saviour now crying out, “ Why are ye fearful, 0 
ye of little faith ?” And while he marvels at our un 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


409 


belief , how is it that we fear to believe ? That we, in 
our blindness, consider it presumptuous to credit the 
word of our great High Priest ? 0, why not leave our 
fruitless toiling, and calmly and confidently resign our 
cause to the Captain of our salvation ? 

Mr. Fletcher gives us the following beautiful illus¬ 
tration of the point I am urging:— 

“ Believers generally go on to Christian perfection 
as the disciples went to the other side of the sea of 
Galilee. They toiled some time very hard, and with 
little success ; but after they had ‘ rowed about twenty- 
five or thirty furlongs, they saw Jesus walking on the 
sea. He said to them, It is I, be not afraid ; then they 
willingly received him into the ship, and immediately 
the ship was at the land whither they went.’ Just so, 
we toil till our faith discovers Christ in the promise, 
and welcomes him into our hearts; and such is the 
effect of his presence, that immediately we arrive at 
the land of perfection. Or, to use another illustration, 
God says to believers, ‘ Go to the Canaan of perfect 
love ; arise, why do ye tarry? Wash away the remains 
of sin, calling, that is, believing, on the name of the 
Lord.’ And if they submit to the obedience of faith, 
he deals with them as he did with the evangelist Phi¬ 
lip, to whom he had said, ‘ Arise, and go toward the 
south.’ For when they ‘ arise and run,’ as Philip did, 
the Spirit of the Lord takes them, as he did the evan¬ 
gelist; and they are found in the New Jerusalem, as 
‘ Philip was found at Azotus.’ They 4 dwell in God,’ 
or in perfect love, ‘and God,’ or perfect love, dwells 
‘ in them.’ ” 

5. I would urge the necessity of attendance upon all 
the means of grace. 

We have seen that the only condition, strictly so 
called, upon which entire sanctification is suspended. 


410 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


is faith. But this faith must be associated with certain 
states of mind and courses of action. It cannot sub¬ 
sist alone. The states of mind which precede and 
accompany this faith I have already noticed. I shall 
now proceed to speak of the course of conduct neces¬ 
sary to be pursued. 

It will be scarcely necessary to urge that he who 
would seek for entire conformity to the will of God 
must forsake all evil courses. The means of grace 
cannot be acceptably performed while we indulge 
in known sin. The psalmist says: “ If I regard 
iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” 
Forsaking every crooked way, and turning our back 
upon the vain pomp and glory of the world, we must 
betake ourselves to all the great duties of piety, charity, 
and mortification prescribed in the gospel. Here I 
need not go extensively into particulars. Some few 
of the duties which are of special importance, and 
which imply the rest, I shall proceed to notice. 

Reading devotionally the Holy Scriptures, commu¬ 
nicating at the Lord’s table, hearing the word preached, 
fasting or abstinence, and prayer, will be found not 
only serviceable but imperatively necessary. We call 
these means of grace —not because they, of them¬ 
selves, infallibly secure the grace of God, but because 
they are outward duties, to the right performance of 
which God promises his blessing. Any negligence in 
these duties implies a wrong state of the moral feel¬ 
ings, and the absence of the essential conditions upon 
which God suspends the gift of the Holy Spirit. But 
we must guard against making any of these means 
either grace itself or the cause of grace. Sanctifying 
grace is a spiritual and invisible influence, which pro¬ 
ceeds from the infinite fulness of divine love. We 
can do nothing to deserve it. All we can do is to seek 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 411 

it in God’s appointed way, and then receive it as a 
mere gratuity, feeling that “ after we have done ah, we 
are unprofitable servants—we have done nothing more 
than was our duty to do.” 

After these general remarks it may not be unneces¬ 
sary to give a more particular view of one leading duty 
—I refer to prayer. Prayer is the soul’s converse 
with God—and God has seen proper to require it of 
all. None will doubt but God might have instituted 
some other plan or mode of intercourse between man 
and his Maker. None will doubt but he might have 
so arranged the conditions of his kingdom that men 
might receive gracious and saving influences without 
asking for them, had he seen this best. But the fact 
that he has instituted prayer as the way or means of 
access to the throne of grace, is abundantly asserted in 
the Scriptures, and exhibits no incongruity with any 
of the various developments of wisdom and goodness 
with which we are acquainted in the divine arrange¬ 
ments. And such an arrangement seems an eminent 
exhibition of wisdom and goodness. What better 
could our heavenly Father have done for us than to 
have said, “Ask, and ye shall receive.” Poor, and 
unworthy, and wretched as we are, we can “ ask.” 
It is the province of paupers to beg —they can ask and 
receive, though they have nothing to pay. 

The faith of which I have spoken has special re¬ 
ference to Christ. It submits to his governance, rests 
upon his atonement, and trusts his promises. Prayer 
for entire sanctification principally contemplates the 
agency of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit is the 
grand efficient agent in the great work of renewing the 
soul in the image of God. And for the aid of the 
Holy Spirit we are instructed to pray. It was when 
the disciples were all with one accord in one place, 


412 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


lifting up their hearts in prayer, that the Holy Ghost 
fell upon them, on the day of Pentecost. And our 
Saviour says, “If ye, being evil, know how to give 
good things to your children, how much more shall 
your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them 
that ask him.” 

For this baptism of the Spirit we must pray in secret. 
Retiring from the world—shutting out its cares—we 
must pour forth a torrent of ardent supplications. 
Our soul’s desires, like the smoking incense, must 
ascend to the very heavens, and curling around the 
divine throne, present a sweet savour to the Eternal. 
0 how heaven-like is the closet! How sacred the 
place where man is in audience with the Deity ! Here 
let the thirsty soul breathe out the unutterable prayer. 
Though thoughts too big for expression may labour in 
the recesses of the soul, there is a consciousness that 
“ God knows them all together.” Though the anguish 
of the spirit is too terrible for endurance, here the 
soul’s best Friend eminently resides, and in the ful¬ 
ness of his compassion says to the weary and heavy- 
laden, Roll your burdens on me. “ Cast thy burdens 
on the Lord, and he will sustain thee.” Though your 
sins are as mountains, he will annihilate them with a 
word. “Thy sins, which are many, are all forgiven 
thee.” Though your corruptions, like a swelling tide, 
threaten to bear you away to the gulf of eternal ruin, 
his infinite love will dry up the vast abyss. For he 
promises to “ purge away our sins till there be none of 
them.” And though misery and grief shall be ready 
to swallow you up, he will give you comfort. “ For, 
behold,” saith he, “ I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, 
and my people a joy.” Here, then, I say, in your 
closet go to God in prayer, and plead his promises and 
your own wretchedness and wants, and God will meet 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTIuN. 413 

you there, for he has said he would. He has promised, 
and he will perform. 

Social prayer will be found especially beneficial. 
The pious vicar of Madeley especially recommends 
this. 

“Social prayer is closely connected with faith in 
the capital promise of the sanctifying Spirit; and 
therefore I earnestly recommend that mean of grace, 
where it can be had, as being eminently conducive to 
the attaining of Christian perfection. When many 
believing hearts are lifted up, and wrestle with God 
in prayer together, you may compare them to many 
diligent hands which work a large machine. At such 
times, particularly, the fountains of the great deep are 
broken up, the windows of heaven are opened, and 
‘ rivers of living water flow’ from the heart of obedient 
believers. 

* In Christ when brethren join. 

And follow after peace, 

The fellowship divine 
He promises to bless, 

His chiefest graces to bestow 
Where two or three are met below. 

* Where unity takes place, 

The joys of heaven we prove; 

This is the gospel grace, 

The unction from above, 

The Spirit on all believers shed, 

Descending swift from Christ their Head.’ 

“ Accordingly we read, that, when God powerfully 
opened the kingdom of the Holy Ghost on the day of 
Pentecost, the disciples ‘ were all with one accord in 
one place.’ And when he confirmed that kingdom, 
they were lifting up 1 their voice to God with one 
accord.’ See Acts ii, 1, and iv, 24. Thus also the 
believers at Samaria were filled with the Holy Ghost, 


414 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the Sanctifier, while Peter and John prayed with them, 
and laid hands upon them.”* 

But if we would soon prevail, we must acquire a 
habit of prayer that overcomes all difficulties and bends 
to no circumstances. We must pray without ceasing. 
When we so deeply feel the need of full redemption in 
the blood of Christ, that whether we walk in the way, 
or toil in the field, or do business at the counter, or 
are in company, our souls breathe out every moment 
the prayer of David, “ Give me a clean heart, O God, 
and renew a right spirit within me,” we are upon the 
very threshold of the inner sanctuary. A little more 
holding on upon the horns of the altar—a little more 
faith—one single venture of the whole upon “ the ever¬ 
lasting arms,” and the work is done. 

But let it not be forgotten that the offering up of our 
prayers for entire sanctification must be characterized 
by the mental states which I have previously described. 
We must fix our attention upon this one object. This 
must be every thing to us. For the time the hell we 
would be delivered from, must be the hell of inbred 
sin; and the heaven we would obtain, the heaven of 
loving God alone. We must desire it above any thing 
beside. We must come to God with a broken and a 
contrite heart. We must believe that God is able, and 
that he is willing to do the work for us, and to do it 
now. With these feelings and views, in this condition 
of the mind, we must come to God in prayer, and as 
sure as God is, he will give us the desire of our 
hearts. 

This, then, is the way in which we are to go on to 
perfection, or to secure that entire sanctification which 
God, who is faithful , has promised, and which we may 
have, thank God, even now. 

* Last Check, see. xix. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


415 


1 will conclude this lecture with several cautions. 

1. Do not be frightened from your purpose by the 
heat of the conflict. 

A great object is to be gained, and if great difficulties 
are to be overcome, and great sacrifices to be made, 
what is this more than should be expected? Indeed, it 
should little concern us how God shall see proper to 
bring us to our desired haven, only so that we are 
safely brought there in due time. And.- what if, to 
mortify our pride, he drag us through the mire ? What 
if, to melt our stony hearts, he bring us through the 
fire ? What if, in bringing us into the land of Canaan, 
he makes us contend with the swellings of Jordan ? 
Yea, what if he bring us through the wilderness— 
through an enemy’s land ? What if we are called to 
encounter fierce opposition, and to hear the noise of 
war and of the battle, and to take the land at the point 
of the sword ? What of all this ? The Captain of 
our salvation goes out before us, and promises to lead 
us safely through. He never lost a battle. He has 
vanquished death—conquered the powers of hell—and 
procured for us eternal redemption. All we have to 
do is to trust our cause with him and follow his hea¬ 
venly guidance. And though he bring us through the 
fire, or through the water, he will see that we come in 
safety and in triumph to the mount of holiness, even to 
our spiritual Jerusalem. But this is a blessing not 
reserved for the cowardly and the faint-hearted, or for 
those who lust for the flesh-pots of Egypt. They will 
die in the wilderness—fall by the hand of the destroyer, 
and perish miserably for ever and ever. 

2. Be not in too great haste to enjoy the comforts of 
tnis blessed state. Make the victory your object, and 
you will in due time be enabled to enjoy the spoils 
Seek, principally, that the work should be deep and 


416 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


thorough : that your heart should be fully circumcised: 
that all the enemies of the Lord should be slain, not 
doubting but when this is done, God will set up the 
empire of peace in your soul. 

3. Be not impatient with apparent delays. If God 
does not come at once, it is because you are not ready 
to receive him. And if your unbelief has delayed the 
application of the sovereign remedy, why should you 
find fault with God ? Should you throw yourself still 
further out at sea because you have not been permitted 
to enter the harbour by an impracticable passage ? 
No, no ! Make your observations anew. Improve by 
your former errors. Ah ! abandon your former pilot, 
worldly prudence, and put yourself under the direction 
of the one infallible, unerring Guide, who will in due 
time bring you into the port of peace. 


LECTURE XIX. 

THE MOTIVES AND REASONS FOR SEEKING ENTIRE SANC¬ 
TIFICATION. 

“Without holiness no man shall see the Lord,” Heb. xii, 14. 

The interest of the subject heightens as we proceed 
—the point next to be considered is in advance of 
any thing heretofore presented. It is indeed im¬ 
portant to have right views of the subject. I have 
accordingly endeavoured to present it in as clear a 
light as possible. But after all, the great object is to 
feel properly impressed with the importance of a per¬ 
sonal experience of the great work in our own hearts 
Our knowledge upon the subject will be of compara¬ 
tively small importance, if we remain unaffected by its 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


417 


great motives. The great object of all doctrinal dis¬ 
cussion should be to prepare the way for action—to give 
birth to practical movements. 

There is an impressiveness in truth itself which 
awakens and stirs the mind not armed against it. But 
there are certain great sanctions whose office especially 
is to produce the right impressions, and to call the 
powers of the soul into action. The human mind is so 
constituted that it will be influenced by motives. And 
the kingdom of Christ is suited to this feature of man’s 
rational and moral nature. Motives high, vast, glo¬ 
rious, and terrible, are brought to bear upon the require¬ 
ments of God, to give them their due importance, and 
make them practically influential. The great argu¬ 
ments of the gospel must take so deep a hold upon the 
moral feelings as that the will of God becomes the 
paramount principle of action. To bring out some of 
the leading reasons which enforce the duty of seeking 
entire sanctification—of going on to perfection—shall 
be the purpose of this lecture. 

1. It is the will of God. 

This the apostle expressly asserts. “ It is the will 
of God, even your sanctification,” 1 Thess. iv, 3. Again: 
“ The God of peace sanctify you wholly. Faithful is 
he who calleth you, who also will do it.” 1 Thess. v, 
23, 21. There are two senses in which the will of 
God may be understood, in both of which it is predi¬ 
cated of our entire sanctification. The first is the per¬ 
missive sense. This implies that God is willing that 
we should be sanctified wholly; it is in perfect accord¬ 
ance with his good pleasure. He has no plan, or pur¬ 
pose, or desire in opposition to our entire conformity to 
his i^nage. This, considering the evil nature and the 
ruinous effects of sin, is a development of his good¬ 
ness, and should of itself be a sufficient reason for our 

o'? 


418 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


availing ourselves of the privilege so graciously vouch¬ 
safed. The case is just this : we have about us the 
remains of a deadly malady, and our good Physician is 
willing to put forth his skill and effect in us a perfect 
cure. We have in our hearts remaining roots of bit¬ 
terness, which ever and anon spring up and trouble us, 
and our grand Restorer is willing to extract them. Now 
why should there be any hesitating on our part in rela¬ 
tion to the matter ? If the sovereign cure is desirable, 
and God is willing to effect it, why delay a moment in 
applying for the remedy ? 

But secondly , it is the will of God in the authoritative 
sense—he requires us to seek this entire holiness. 
The length and breadth of the evangelical law is this : 
“ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy 
strength and what is this but a state of entire sanc¬ 
tification ?—and what less could God require ? There 
is no disagreement among Christians here: all admit 
that God requires entire holiness. But the point in 
which we differ from others is, that we not only logi¬ 
cally conclude the attainableness of this state, but urge 
the duty of seeking it now , from the fact of its being 
required. And who can show the argument illogical, 
or the exhortation baseless. 

The will of God is paramount law. If we resist or 
neglect it, we are guilty of disobedience—we contract 
guilt, and come into condemnation. What then is the 
condition of those Christians who do not seek at all the 
entire sanctification which God requires? Are they 
doing the will of God ? Let all concerned lay their 
hand upon their heart and decide this question accord 
ing to truth and evidence. I must not be understood 
to say that all who are not entirely sanctified are in a 
state of damning sin : this sentiment I have explicitly 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


419 


and honestly disavowed on a former occasion. But 
what I do mean is, that those Christians who do not 
seek, and seek constantly, for an entirely sanctified 
nature, fall into condemnation. And I may add, that 
this condemnation must be removed by pardon, upon 
repentance, or it will finally “ drown the soul in de¬ 
struction and perdition.” 

The will of God, then, both permissive and authori¬ 
tative,, is a grand reason why we should seek for entire 
sanctification. 

2. I urge the honour and glory of God. 

The Westminster catechism truly teaches us that 
“ man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for 
ever.” God made man for his own glory: and in 
accordance with this end, he made him “ in his own 
image.” It is the image of God in man that reflects 
the glory of the divine nature. In proportion as man 
is destitute of this image does he dishonour God, and 
thwart the high purposes of his being. In our natural, 
unrenewed state, we are entirely destitute of this image; 
in our regenerate state its lineaments begin to develop 
themselves ; and in our entire sanctification it is wholly 
restored. How then can we glorify God fully until we 
are wholly sanctified ? 

Again. God is glorified in the accomplishment of 
the ends of the Saviour’s mission into the world. Christ 
was manifested to destroy the works of the devil—he 
came to abolish sin—to redeem his people from its 
power, and to wash them from its stains. How then 
can God, in the highest sense, be glorified in us until 
this is accomplished? In the Saviour’s memorable 
prayer, just before his passion, he bore his disciples to 
the throne of the heavenly grace in this language : 
“ Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth 
and then says, “ And for their sakes I sanctify myself, 


120 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


that they also might be sanctified through the truth,” 
John xvii, 17 , 19 . He doubtless speaks here of entire 
sanctification, for the disciples had certainly already 
been made the subjects of the first beginnings of this 
work. The idea then is that Christ had sanctified , i. e., 
set apart himself to the mediatorial work, to the end 
that his people might be fully sanctified through the 
truth. The object of the Saviour’s mission is then but 
partially accomplished, and God but partially glorified 
in us, so long as we are sanctified but in part. Shall 
we then give the Saviour the honour of a complete 
triumph over our fallen natures—shall we give to God 
the whole mead of glory—shall Christ be glorified in 
us, and “the Father be glorified in the Son,” in our 
complete restoration to holiness ? 

Finally. God is not glorified in our lives until they 
are fully conformed to his will. St. Paul says, “Ye are 
not your own, ye are bought with a price ; therefore glo¬ 
rify God in your body and in your spirit which are his,” 
1 Cor. vi, 19, 20. “ Wherefore also we pray always for 
you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, 
and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the 
work of faith with power; that the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, 
according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus 
Christ,” 2 Thess. i, 11, 12. A blameless and holy 
life is the only way to honour God before the world 
And who can suppose that a life spotted with many 
sins in “ word and deed,” as well as in “ thought,” is 
as acceptable to God, and as promotive of his glory, as 
one altogether “ unspotted from the world.” Every sin 
soils the Christian’s garments, and disgraces his high 
and holy profession. If the church is the light and 
glory of the world, and the Christian’s walk is the out¬ 
ward expression of the hidden life within, and the 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


421 


Hnbodiment of the true character of that religion he 
professes, and the reflection of the image of the invisi¬ 
ble God, is it not upright? Should he not, then, walk 
as Christ also walked ? How else can we fully honour 
God in our lives ? 

In every view the honour of God is concerned in 
our present entire sanctification. As, then, we would 
glorify the God that made us, and the Saviour who has 
redeemed us, we must seek a heart wholly renewed— 
we must “go on to perfection.” 

3. Our usefulness in the church and the world is an 
important consideration in favour of our seeking entire 
sanctification. 

Our Saviour says to his disciples, “ Let your light 
so shine before men, that they may see your good 
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven,” 
Matt, v, 16. If we have been converted and brought 
into the church, it is to the end that we may add as 
much as possible to the common stock of influence and 
moral power—that we may contribute our quota to the 
tide of effort that, under God, is to work the regenera¬ 
tion of the world. And it will be admitted on all hands, 
I presume, that our moral power will be precisely in 
proportion to the measure of our grace. If we lose 
our grace, like the salt that has lost its savour, we are 
“ good for nothing.” If we have little grace we shall 
do but little good; and if we are “ filled with all the 
fulness of God,” we shall exert a vast influence upon 
the bestqnterests of men. 

There are several ways in which we are required to 
exert a good influence upon the moral condition of 
others. One of these is by our words, in teaching, 
exhorting, admonishing, and reproving them. When, 
then, will we be likely to do this work the most effect¬ 
ually? When we are “renewed in knowledge after the 


422 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


image of God,” and when “ the love of God is perfected 
in us,” and when our walk is “ unblamable and unre- 
provable before Godor when our understanding is 
darkened, and our spiritual energies are paralyzed, or 
at least greatly weakened, by our corruptions; and 
when those we would benefit turn upon us the soul¬ 
withering rebuff, “Physician, heal thyself?” In order 
to teach the way to heaven with clearness and effect, 
must we not be deeply and thoroughly acquainted with 
the things of God ? In order to “ exhort and reprove 
with all long-suffering and doctrine”—to set our face 
with confidence against the world, and “ testify of it 
that its works are evil,” must we not be able to say, 
“ Herein do I exercise myself, always to have a con¬ 
science void of offence both toward God and men,” 
and “ our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our con¬ 
science, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, (not in 
fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God,) we have had 
our conversation in the world?” All this Paul could 
say, and what power did it impart to his preaching,— 
what potency to his reproofs! The arguments that 
convince, and the words that burn, come from sancti¬ 
fied lips—come blazing from a heart itself on fire with 
the perfect love of God. 

How important then is a holy ministry ! Well was 
the injunction given, “ Be ye clean that bear the ves¬ 
sels of the Lord.” The church will scarcely take a 
higher stand in religion than that which is occupied by 
the ministry. And the ministry will lead the flock on 
in paths of peace and holiness in the same proportion 
in which they are themselves possessed of the spirit of 
holiness. And they will be a terror to the ungodly, 
and will check the outbreakings of sin, and curtaii 
the tide of corruption in the world, in the same propor¬ 
tion in which they are possessed of the spirit of the 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


423 


holy prophets, apostles, and blessed martyrs of olden 
time. 

It is, also, vastly important, though it cannot be said 
to be equally important, that exhorters, class-leaders, 
and superintendents and teachers of sabbath-schools 
should be clad with the armour of holiness and right¬ 
eousness. Great interests are committed to their 
trust—they are made, in a measure, responsible for the 
spiritual improvement and the final salvation of multi¬ 
tudes of souls redeemed by the precious blood of 
Christ. And the more deeply they are imbued with 
the spirit of their Lord and Master, the better and the 
more successfully will they discharge their important 
trust. 

The same may be said of parents and heads of 
families; and, indeed, to a certain extent, of all private 
Christians. They all are members of the great social 
compact, and all have gifts to improve for the edifica¬ 
tion of the church and benefit of mankind. And their 
vast responsibilities will be met, as they are holy in 
heart and in life, and in all manner of conversation. 

Another mode of serving the interests of the church 
and the world is by our prayers. 

We have abundant evidence that the prayers of holy 
men and women are availing. When God was about 
to punish the disobedient Israelites, Moses threw him 
self into the breach, and by his intercessions the sword 
of justice was stayed. The language of the Almighty 
upon this occasion gives a strong idea of the power of 
prayer. Says he, “ Let me alone i that I may destroy 
themas though the intercessions of his servant 
bound the hand of justice. While Moses prays, God 
forbears, though the occasion is one of great provoca¬ 
tion. “ Elijah prayed, and it rained not upon the earth 
by the space of three years and six months : and again 


424 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


he prayed, and the heavens gave rain.” The dying 
martyr Stephen prayed, and the young man, Saul, 
who kept the garments of them that slew him, was 
soon after converted. St. Augustine says, If Stephen 
had not prayed, Saul had not been converted. Though 
we are not assured of this in the record, yet there is no 
hazard in presuming a connection between the prayer 
of the martyr and the conversion of the persecutor. 

Indeed, we have the most ample and positive assur¬ 
ances that prayer has mighty influence with God. “ He 
will avenge his own elect who cry day and night unto 
him. He will do it speedily.” And he has even 
assured us that “ whatsoever ” we “ ask in faith, nothing 
doubting,” he “ will give it us.” This is a wonderful 
promise, but is no less true than marvellous. It is 
almost too much to suppose, that no prayer offered up 
to God in faith can fail of its object. It is still true 
that all prayers offered up to God in submission and 
confidence will prevail. The answer may not be 
given according to our notions of things, or according 
to our expectations, but will be given in a way far 
better than we could devise. Paul prayed thrice to 
God that he would take away the thorn in the flesh. 
This prayer God answered, but not in the way the 
apostle expected. The answer was, “ My grace is 
sufficient for thee.” So our believing prayers will all 
be answered, either in the thing asked or in an equiva¬ 
lent—or far more than an equivalent. All this is as 
true in relation to our intercessions for others as our 
simple petitions for blessings for ourselves. 

When, then, may it be presumed that our prayers 
will gain the readiest access to the ear of God ? When 
we love him with a perfect love, and believe in him 
with a perfect faith, and submit to his will with per¬ 
fect resignation : or when all our grace? are mingled 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


425 


with alloy, and deficient in both their compass and 
vigour? St. John says: “Beloved, if our heart con¬ 
demn us not, then have we confidence toward God; 
and whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we 
keep his commandments, and do those things that are 
pleasing in his sight,” 1 John iii, 21, 22. It is, then, 
when we do the will of God, and keep a pure con¬ 
science, that we can approach God with “ confi¬ 
dence” that “whatsover we ask we shall receive 
of him.” 

As we then would bring upon the church a tide of 
prosperity ; as we would hold back the heaviest judg¬ 
ments of Almighty God from a guilty world; as we 
would have sinners arrested by the Spirit of God; as 
we would bring peace and joy to those who mourn in 
Zion ; as we would help on believers in seeking for 
entire deliverance from sin : in fine, as we would have 
our prayers tell upon the best interests of the church 
and the world, we must seek entire conformity to the 
will and image of God. Of what avail will be a few 
cold, heartless, selfish, formal prayers? They will 
prove a curse instead of a blessing to mankind. If we 
would have our prayers availing, we must be moved 
by an expansive charity; “bowels of mercy, kind¬ 
ness,” &c.; we must exert a commanding faith; we 
must have power with God. 

The last mode I shall mention in which we may 
exert a good influence upon others, in this connection, 
is that of example. 

Our Saviour said to his disciples : “ Ye are the 
light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be 
hid : neither do men light a candle, and put it under a 
bushel, but on a candlestick ; and it giveth light to all 
that are in the house,” Matt, v, 14, 15. Need I 
attempt to prove that Christians will reflect the most 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


42G 

light when they are most conformed to the image of 
God ? As the spots which sometimes appear in the 
snn do not wholly obstruct its light, so the defects 
which appear in the lives of Christians, provided they 
are not striking or numerous, do not render their in 
fluence, on the whole, pernicious. Still it cannot be a 
question but a life wholly free from all moral delin¬ 
quencies is inconceivably more effective in its influence 
upon the well-being of society than the one frequently 
tarnished with acts of disobedience, or of a worldly 
spirit. 

When Christians love the Lord with all their hearts, 
love the souls of men more than their own ease, honour, 
or emolument, and “ love each other with a pure heart 
fervently,” their example speaks volumes, and preaches 
more effectively than words in favour of the cause they 
profess to love. Then they “ put to silence the igno¬ 
rance of foolish men.” Then the gospel acquires an 
influence which wins its way to the hearts of the mul¬ 
titude. The sacramental host of God’s elect—clad with 
the panoply of God, saved from the corruptions which 
are in the world, and armed with holy faith and mighty 
prayer—holds in check the powers of hell, and triumphs 
over the most formidable obstacles. In her infancy, 
when few in numbers, the church, by her purity, 
silenced the objections of philosophers, and broke the 
power of persecution—successfully assailed the strong 
holds of superstition, and finally demolished the whole 
fabric of idolatry, which had been rendered venerable 
and sacred by the lapse of ages. She “ quenched the 
violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of 
weakness was made strong, waxed valiant in fight, 
turned to flight the armies of the aliens.” The simple 
preaching of the cross, accompanied by a holy, self- 
denying life, like an earthquake struck dumb a 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


427 


giddy and clamorous world, and carried terror to the 
very gates of hell! Who can look back to the period 
when Christianity achieved her noblest triumphs, and 
see altars and temples crumbling to dust, and the gods 
of the heathen given to the moles and to the bats—the 
church multiplied and increased under the bloodiest 
persecutions—martyrs going to the stake in ecstacy, 
and their very executioners converted by the grandeur 
of their examples, and in their turn following them to 
the possession of the martyr’s crown—who, I say, can 
survey these scenes without feeling convinced that 
there is a power altogether unearthly in a life of purity 
and self-denial ? 

These wonderful demonstrations are, no doubt, to 
be expected in the latter times. The church is 
destined to a higher grade of purity than she now 
enjoys. And when the purity and simplicity of the 
apostolic age shall characterize the great mass of 
Christian believers—when the institutions of Chris¬ 
tianity shall be strictly conformed to the original plan, 
and the members of the church shall all stand forth 
completely armed with “ the armour of righteousness 
on the right hand and on the left,” then will “ the king¬ 
dom and dominion, and the greatness of the king¬ 
dom under the whole heaven, be given to the people 
of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an 
everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and 
obey him,” Dan. vii, 27. 

That we may act favourably upon the condition 
of the church and upon the destinies of the world in 
all these various respects, we must be holy. And if 
we would exert the most potent influence upon these 
great interests we should seek entire sanctification. 

4. Our own best interests require that we seek entire 
sanctification without the least delay. 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OK 


4 28 

I have before urged that it will be a safeguard against 
backsliding and apostacy. It is equally sure that we 
shall make the most certain and rapid progress in the 
divine life, and enjoy the greatest amount of spiritual 
consolation, if we aspire to the whole mind of Christ. 
Then may we “ always” be caused “ to triumph in 
Christ”—“ rejoice evermore : pray without ceasing: 
in every thing give thanks.” 

We complain of a want of religious comfort—we go 
mourning with our heads bowed down like a bulrush, 
and scarcely suspect the cause to be the want of the 
high state of grace which I here urge. How little 
solid religious comfort have most Christians ! And the 
cause is, .that they have so little love, so little faith, so 
little likeness to Christ—so much conformity to the 
world. We sometimes almost reflect upon God on 
account of our barrenness of enjoyment and our many 
failures. But God has only promised us his abiding 
presence, and a fulness of divine consolation, and con¬ 
stant victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil, 
on the condition that we devote ourselves unreservedly 
to him—that we “go on to perfection.” But, alas 
for us ! We are looking for the end without the means; 
we want the crown, but will not bear the cross; we 
thirst for the reward, but object to the labour and the 
sacrifice. 

The crosses and burdens of Christianity are easy 
and sweet to him who is fully sanctified. The duties, 
the most grievous to flesh and blood, are, to him, a 
source of sacred pleasure. He says, in the language 
of the poet,— 

“ Labour is rest, and pain is sweet, 

If thou, my God, art here.” 

Whether called to endure toils or make sacrifices, to 
suffer afflictions or endure reproaches; yea, if re- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


429 


quired, to leave home and kindred, and take up his 
abode with savage men—to exchange the delicacies 
and refinements of the city, of the parlour, and the 
toilet, for the destitution of the wilderness and the filth 
of the wigwam, he is ready to say, “What things 
were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea 
doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excel¬ 
lency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord : for 
whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do 
count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be 
found in him, not having mine own righteousness, 
which is of the law, but that which is through the 
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
faith : that I may know him, and the power of his 
resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being 
made conformable unto his death ; if by any means I 
might attain unto the resurrection of the dead,” Phil, 
iii, 7-11. 

And is there not something truly desirable in the 
testimony of a good conscience, and a full assurance 
of the divine protection and blessing? If we can lie 
down to rest with peace of mind, and a full assurance 
that whether we awake in this world or the other, all 
is well; and arise in the morning with a grateful song 
of praise bursting from a full heart; surely we are 
in an enviable state of mind. In a world of utter 
uncertainty and fluctuation, what state so desirable as 
that which is implied in the language of Paul: “ Who 
shall separate us from the love of Christ ? shall tribu¬ 
lation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or naked¬ 
ness, or peril, or sword ? As it is written, For thy sake 
we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as 
sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we 
are more than conquerors, through him that loved us. 
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor 


430 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 

angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things pre¬ 
sent, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any 
other creature, shall be able to separate us from the 
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom. 
viii, 35-39. This is the present triumph of perfect 
love. How desirable is this state, then, if we look 
merely to the present life ! 

But how does the importance of the attainment in¬ 
crease when we look to the final hour ? When called 
to contend with the swellings of Jordan, of what incon¬ 
ceivable importance will it be to us to be in a state of 
entire readiness to pass into our changeless state ! 
Mr. Wesley gives it as his opinion, that most Chris¬ 
tians are not wholly sanctified until just before death. 
The evidence of this is not only the fact that they do 
not enjoy the blessedness of the state of perfect love 
for any considerable portion of their lives, but also the 
fact, that as they approach the final struggle, they 
usually pass through a series of painful and agonizing 
regrets with regard to the past, and the most distressing 
misgivings with regard to their future and final state ; 
and are brought at length to a full surrender of them¬ 
selves to God, and then they resign the world with all 
its dearest interests, and sink into eternity full of hope. 
Now believing, as we do, that we may pass through 
this struggle, and come into the possession of a faith 
that lays firm hold of immortality any length of time 
before death, as well as in its immediate prospect, why 
should we delay the work until the moment in Which, 
above all others, it is the most difficult. How much 
better to be able to say with Dr. Clarke, who, when 
his friends saw his end was near, and suggested to him 
that it would be necessary for him to prepare soon to 
meet his Judge, said promptly , I have prepared already: 
to feel that we are ready for the approach of death in 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


43J 


any form and at any time ; and when death shall 
come, to welcome him without fear or alarm : to be 
able to say with Paul, “ I am now ready to be offered, 
and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought 
a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept 
the faith : henceforth there is laid up for me a crown 
of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, 
shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto 
all them also that love his appearing.” 2 Tim. iv, 6-8. 

Look, also, to the day of judgment, and to an eternal 
state, and see what an accumulation of motives here 
present themselves for an early and complete victory 
over sin. Will it be of no importance, then, that we 
shall have triumphed early over the evils of our natures? 
Will it detract nothing from our honour and happiness 
that we retained to the very last in our hearts some of 
the enemies of the Lord ? In what light will we then 
view our littleness of faith, our apathy in relation to 
the great work of entire holiness ? When Wesley, and 
Fletcher, and Carvosso, and others are seated near the 
throne, where will we be ? These are serious ques¬ 
tions, which it becomes us wisely to answer. But I 
must forbear. The theme is one in the sublimity of 
which our utmost conceptions fail. 

If the souls of men are precious ; if we are made in 
any measure responsible for them ; if heaven and hell 
are realities ; and the judgment day is not a phantom, 
“let us go on to perfection.” O let us be moved by 
the Saviour’s sweat, and tears, and blood; by the 
agonies of the garden ; by the groans of Calvary; by 
the solemnities of death; by the terrors of the judg¬ 
ment; by the pains of hell and by the joys of heaven, 
to go on to perfection ! Pressed by such motives, why 
“stand” we “here all the day idle?” Earth groans! 
heaven invites ! hell threatens ! and yet we sleep! ! 


432 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


Time flies, the Saviour woos, eternity is at hand ! ! 
When will the great—the all-absorbing motives of 
God’s word exert their appropriate influence upon 
Christians ? Shall we be moved by the trifles around 
us ? shall we spend our time and strength in labouring 
to acquire riches, honours, and pleasures ? and shall 
there be no place in our minds for such considerations 
as I have adduced ? 

u Come, Holy Spirit, heavenly Dove, 

With all thy quick’ning powers, 

Kindle a flame of sacred love 
In these cold hearts of ours.” 


LECTURE XX. 

THE EVIDENCES OF ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. 

“ He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him¬ 
self,” 1 John v, 10. 

It is but reasonable to conclude that if such a state 
as we contend for is ever attained in the present life, 
it would be accompanied by certain signs or evidences 
which would satisfactorily indicate its existence; at 
least the subject of it would have some sort of evidence 
of his being in that state. It shall be the object of the 
present lecture to inquire into the evidence which a 
person entirely sanctified may be expected to have of 
that great change. 

And in the first place, fully to guard against all mis¬ 
taken conclusions, it will be proper to consider the 
subject negatively—to speak of several things which 
are not to be considered as evidences of this state. 

1. Exemption from temptation is not to be considered 
as a consequence of the great change implied n? "-lire 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 433 

sanctification, or the continued enjoyment of that holy 
and blessed state. 

Temptation in general signifies trial or test; and 
when it has reference to moral evil, it is permitted as 
a trial of our faith or virtue. Temptations to sin are 
from without—that is, they are not impulsions of the 
mind, but the suggestions or solicitations of an evil 
agent. Evil impulses are themselves sin. They 
arise from the corruptions of the heart. “ From the 
heart proceedeth evil thin'gs,” &c. A heart that sends 
forth, as a fountain its streams, corrupt impulses, must 
consequently be unsanctified. But the assaults of evil 
agents may be made upon the purest mind. Our Lord 
Jesus Christ “ was in all points tempted like as we are 
and yet without sin.” The great difference between 
the temptations of those who are entirely sanctified and 
those who are not, is, that the temptation coming into 
contact with the latter, often stirs the sediment of cor¬ 
ruption, while, assaulting with equal violence the for¬ 
mer, it meets with uniform resistance, and leaves no 
trace behind but an increase of moral power and the 
fruits of a new triumph. 

The following views of the subject of temptation 
cast much light upon its most common and ordinary 
forms. I do not present them as a perfect analysis of 
the whole subject, nor wish them to go for authority 
any further than they are true to the decisions of Scrip¬ 
ture and experience. Dr. Bates says of temptations : 

“ 1. They may be distinguished by their quality. 
Unnatural thoughts against ourselves, and blasphemous 
of God, are usually from the tempter. 

“ 2. When they make terrible impressions upon oui 
spirits, they are his fiery darts. For the native off¬ 
spring of our hearts are conceived with freedom and 

complacency. 

1 J 28 


434 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


“ 3. They are our infelicities, but induce no guilt 
when resisted by us. As the virgin, that cried out for 
rescue from violence, was declared by God himself 
innocent, so when the tempted soul, with strong cries, 
prays for divine relief, God will not lay those terrible 
injections to our charge. Our Saviour was tempted 
by the unclean spirit, yet was holy, harmless, and un¬ 
defiled, (Matt, iv, Heb. vii, 26,) and has a compas¬ 
sionate tenderness for those who are tempted, and will 
make them partake of the fruits of his glorious victory. 
It is true, if the injections of Satan are cherished by 
the carnal mind, they are ours by adoption, though of 
his begetting. The devil put in the heart of Judas the 
design of betraying Christ, but it was entertained by 
his covetous mind, and involved him under the heaviest 
guilt. The inclinations of carnal men are to various 
sins, to which they are more inclinable by the tempta¬ 
tions of Satan; but that does not excuse them from 
guilt.”* 

Another Christian philosopher presents the subject 
in the following perspicuous language :— 

“ Temptations, it will undoubtedly be conceded by 
those who have paid attention to the subject, are objects 
which are presented by the intellect to the sensibilities 
and the will; and are of such a nature that they have 
a tendency to induce or cause in those sensibilities, 
(that is to say, in the appetites, propensities, and affec¬ 
tions,) and also in the will, an inordinate, excessive, or 
perverted action. The incipient, and what may be 
termed the innocent stage of the temptation, is when 
the object which is the medium of temptation is first 
presented to us intellectually; that is to say, in our 
mere thoughts or perceptions. Our Saviour was 
tempted by having the kingdoms and wealth of this 
* Spiritual Perfection, pp. 85, 86. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


435 


world presented before him, as objects of desire ; but 
the temptation went no further than the thoughts. It 
had no effect upon his desires or will; but was imme¬ 
diately rejected. It was necessary that the object of 
temptation should exist intellectually; in other words, 
that it should exist in the thoughts, or be perceived and 
thought of. Without this, viz., the perceived or intel¬ 
lective presence of the object, it is entirely clear that 
there could not possibly be any such thing as tempta¬ 
tion. But the temptation may exist to this extent with¬ 
out sin. The temptations, for instance, to which the 
Saviour was subjected, were in every instance entirely 
without sin ; for the simple reason, that they did not 
go beyond the thoughts; they did not enter into the 
emotions and desires; they excited no favourable or 
assenting feeling; they caused no accordant action of 
the will; but were instantly and fully repelled. They 
were not like sparks thrown upon tinder, and kindled 
into a blaze ; but rather like sparks thrown upon the 
ocean, and instantly extinguished.”* 

It is a question not always of easy solution, at what 
point the mere temptation terminates and sin begins— 
or when we may be said to enter into temptation. It 
will not be consistent with my general object in this 
lecture to enter into the metaphysics of this question. 
I wish to present the subject in as plain and practical 
a manner as possible, and not to go into a recondite 
disquisition, which would rather perplex the subject 
than render aid to the serious inquirer. 1 shall, then, 
simply lay down a few general principles which, 1 
hope, will be obvious and indisputable. 

First , then. I suppose all will admit, that when the 
temptation gains the concurrence of the will, the sub¬ 
ject contracts guilt. There can be no doubt here. 

* Guide to Perfection. 


436 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


The consent of the mind to a single act, or a course 
of actions, which God has forbidden, will bring upon 
us his displeasure ; nor will the violence of the tempta¬ 
tion, or our natural tendencies toward the inhibited 
object, be any apology for our fault. For though God, 
for wise reasons, suffers us to be tempted, yet the 
temptations which he permits are not irresistible. 

Secondly. It is equally clear, that when the tempta¬ 
tion begets in the mind a desire for the forbidden 
object, the subject enters into temptation , and so sins 
against God. The perfectly formed desire, resting 
upon a forbidden object, is positive proof of an aliena¬ 
tion of the affections from God, and of inherent de¬ 
pravity, the workings of which God must ever abhor. 

Thirdly. It is also clear that temptations cannot be 
invited , or unnecessarily protracted, without an indi¬ 
cation of a sinful tendency toward the forbidden object, 
and consequently, such a course not only implies the 
absence of entire sanctification, but involves the sub¬ 
ject in actual sin. The pure mind will not only resist 
the assaults of evil, but will, as far as practicable, fly 
its very presence. 

Another question of no little delicacy is, how far we 
are responsible for our spontaneous emotions —how 
far they go toward making up the moral character, 
and when they imply unsanctified affections. There 
can be no doubt but this class of mental states is 
much under the influence of our habits of thought 
and feeling*:—that those whose minds are most de¬ 
cidedly under the influence of religious considerations 
and feelings will experience the fewest instances of 
such sudden and transient mental emotions as seem to 
indicate internal corruptions, or unsanctified affec¬ 
tions, or are of doubtful character. It may be in some 
cases difficult to determine whether our spontaneous 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


437 


emotions are the workings of a morbid state of the 
moral feelings, or purely the temptations of Satan. 
It is probable God, in his wisdom, has left the line 
of dist inction between these mental states so deep 
and obscure, for the purpose of exercising our facul¬ 
ties of moral discrimination. And it is not to be 
questioned but those who the most constantly and 
carefully watch the operations of their own minds, 
and investigate the origin and tendency of theii mental 
processes, will be the least liable to err fatally in their 
decisions upon this point. In a pure and healthy state 
of the mind, it will not be difficult, in general, to come 
to right conclusions in relation to the moral character 
of our thoughts and feelings—at least so far as is 
necessary to all practical purposes ; and more than 
this is not at all essential. We should labour for such 
a knowledge of our own hearts, and of the great rule 
of moral duty, that we need not fall into the fatal con¬ 
clusion, either that our temptations and infirmities are 
sins , or that our real sins are nothing but temptations 
or infirmities. 

2. Uninterrupted joy is not to be regarded as an in¬ 
fallible accompaniment of entire sanctification. 

Persons in a state of mere justification may often be 
filled with strong consolation, and at times be raised 
to ecstasies of joy; while it remains a fact that those 
whose whole soul and body are laid upon the altar are 
often in heaviness, for various causes. The changes 
in our physical constitution will often interrupt our joy. 
Sorrow may be a necessary discipline for the most per¬ 
fect Christian, to advance his graces and keep him 
from falling. 

It is not to be doubted but there have been cases of 
persons who, upon some extraordinary rapture, have 
erroneously supposed that all their corruptions were 


438 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


taken away. And it is also a fact that some who have 
probably experienced the blessing of perfect love, have 
given up their confidence upon some season of sorrow, 
erroneously supposing that if they were freed from sin 
they would never sorrow more. 

Lady Maxwell says:—“ The Lord has taught me 
that it is by faith, and not joy, that I must live. He 
has, in a measure, often enabled me strongly to act 
faith on Jesus for sanctification, even in the absence 
of all comfort. This has diffused a heaven of sweet¬ 
ness through my soul, and brought with it the powerful 
witness of purity.” Carvosso quotes this passage, and 
remarks upon it:—“ I have recorded these remarks, 
because they so perfectly agree with my own views 
and experience.”* Two more competent witnesses in 
a case of this kind could scarcely be desired. 

3. It need not be expected that a state of entire con¬ 
secration to God will always be accompanied by extra¬ 
ordinary gifts. 

The entirely sanctified minister will still have about 
him his natural or constitutional infirmities. He will 
probably be no more accurate or fluent than before, 
and may not be so much so as many others of far less 
religious attainments. There is a difference between 
gifts and grace. We may have an extraordinary amount 
of one, with but little of the other. 

4. Great apparent success is not to be considered as 
an evidence of this state. 

Many ministers, with a small amount of grace, and 
some, indeed, with none at all, have been very success¬ 
ful : and many holy men have appeared for the time 
to labour in vain, and spend their strength for naught. 
This unfruitfulness, however, is only in appearance. 
Futurity will develop the blessed effects of their pious 
* Memoir of Carvosso, p. 193. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


439 


toil. God will see to that. It is for us to labour in the 
right spirit, and it is with God to give the increase. 

I shall now proceed to present what I conceive may 
be considered satisfactory evidence of a state of entire 
sanctification. 

1. The witness of the Spirit—the testimony of God’s 
Spirit that the soul is entirely sanctified. 

I shall not now inquire wdiether any have ever felt 
this inward testimony, presuming that the fact will 
be supposed credible or incredible, as the evidence 
I have adduced in favour of the fact, that some have 
been entirely sanctified in this life, shall be credited or 
otherwise : for if it is conceded that this state is at¬ 
tainable, and has been attained, it will not, I presume, 
be very strenuously disputed but that it would probably 
be accompanied by satisfactory evidence of its exist¬ 
ence. A satisfactory evidence of a work of grace in 
general has been admitted by evangelical divines, as 
well Calvinist as Arminian. Indeed this seems clearly 
settled in the Scriptures. St. Paul says : “ The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the 
children of God,” Rom. viii, 16. Upon this passage 
the learned Diodati, who was a member of the synod 
of Dort, and assisted in drawing up the Belgic confes¬ 
sion, makes the following comment:—“ ‘ The Spirit’— 
viz., As he sets us on to call God our father, so like¬ 
wise assureth us on his part, and sealeth it in our 
hearts, that we are truly his children.”* 

The Westminster divines upon this passage say:— 

‘ The Holy Ghost doth not only stir us up to call upon 
God as our father, but doth also seal unto our hearts, 
that we are truly his children : thus the Spirit testifieth 
to our spirit, (as some render the words;) but if we 
translate them, £ beareth witness with our spirits,’ the 
* See Diodati’s Annotations, in loc. 


440 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


meaning is, that the Spirit witnesseth together with our 
own spirit, which doth likewise help to bear witness 
by observing the proper marks of God’s adoption, which 
our spirit findeth in ourselves by the Spirit of God. 
This witness, though it be not always alike evident 
and powerful in true believers, yet it doth oftentimes 
manifest itself,* even when they are in their lowest 
estate and greatest extremity.”* 

Si. John also clearly declares this doctrine. He 
says, “ He that believeth on the Son of God hath the 
witness in himself,” 1 John v, 10. Upon these words 
Diodati says :—“ In himself —That is to say, sound¬ 
ing, and imprinted in his heart, by the Holy Ghost, 
which dwelleth in him, and certifies, and puts him out 
of doubt, concerning this truth.”! 

Here then we have explicit proof from the New Tes¬ 
tament, according to the interpretations of the best 
Calvinistic authorities, of the witness of the Spirit — 
the testimony of the Spirit of God to the truth of our 
adoption. I need bring no further proof that this doc¬ 
trine is taught in the Bible, or that it has been held by 
evangelical Calvinists, but may consider the matter as 
settled. 

What I would now urge is, that if a sensible evi¬ 
dence of adoption may be expected, that the same kind 
of evidence may be expected, with increased lustre, to 
accompany the different stages of our progress in holi¬ 
ness. If God vouchsafe to the merely justified an 
evidence of gracious acceptance, would he be likely to 
withhold from those, whose hearts are entirely conse¬ 
crated to him, an evidence that the offering is accepted ? 
Indeed, the doctrines of the evidence of adoption, and 
of entire sanctification in this life, being proved, it 
seems a matter of course that the inward testimony of 
* Annotations in lor, + Annotations. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


441 


the Spirit to the truth of the latter, whenever it takes 
place, would be afforded. But this testimony must be 
sustained by other evidences, which I shall now pro¬ 
ceed to notice. 

2. The inward testimony must be accompanied by a 
consciousness of victory over sin. 

The body of sin being destroyed , none of its motions 
must remain. I hope I have been sufficiently explicit 
on the subject of temptations and infirmities. We do not 
take these into the reckoning when we speak of the 
motions of sin, but refer wholly to those irregularities 
in the movements of the soul which are opposed to the 
will of God, and are consequently inconsistent with a 
stase of entire conformity to that will. When the soul 
is entirely sanctified, all these irregular motions sub¬ 
side. Temptations may assault a soul in this state, 
but they wake up no rebellion, they agitate no unholy 
elements. The soul is firmly fixed upon the Rock of 
ages, and fully armed against every assault. The con¬ 
flicts of such, though often severe, and sometimes pro¬ 
tracted, finally terminate in a triumph over the enemy. 
They have not to bewail their sad defeats in the lan¬ 
guage of the poet,— 

“ Here I repent, and sin again, 

Now I revive, and now am slain ; 

Slain by the same unhappy dart, 

Which oh ! too often wounds my heart.” 

On the other hand their language is, “ Thanks be to 
God, who giveth us the victory, through our Lord 
Jesus Christ.” 

3. Another evidence of this high and holy state is a 
deep and constant current of love flowing out toward 
God and all mankind. 

This love is the same in principle which is felt by 
the merely justified soul, but differs in its strength and 


442 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


uniformity. The entirely sanctified soul loves God 
supremely, and without interruption. No earthly 
object intervenes between him and his God. Objects 
there are indeed which are dear to his heart, but they 
are placed in subordination to God. They are God’s 
creatures, and are loved for his sake, but never take 
his place. This precious, perfect love of God burns 
like a fire in the heart of the fully sanctified. It melts 
down and consumes all obstacles—it “brings every 
thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” 

The practical operations of this great principle are 
clearly and strongly represented by the great apostle. 
“ Charity,” (ayanr], love,) says he, “ suffereth long and 
is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not 
itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, 
seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh 
no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in thf 
truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth 
all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth.’ 
1 Cor. xiii, 4-8. 

All this is fulfilled in those wdio are made perfect in 
love. And it would be strange if these various opera¬ 
tions of love were not matters of personal conscious¬ 
ness—if the subjects of them were unable to distinguish 
between the genuine workings of this heaven-born 
principle and the operations of unsanctified affections. 

It has been made a question whether this love is 
wholly disinterested, or whether it is consistent with 
any regard to our own interests or happiness. Upon 
this question there has been much idle and injurious 
speculation. I have no disposition to enter into the 
metaphysical subtleties in which this point has been 
involved, though a brief statement of the true views 
may be necessary here. 

I conceive that all the disinterested benevolence that 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION 


443 


has any foundation in the word of God is a benevolence 
which does not suffer self to interfere with the public 
goody or with any revealed purpose of God. Further 
than this we are not required in the Bible, nor indeed 
is it possible for us, in the present state, to give up a 
regard to our own personal interests. But this does 
not require us to be willing that we ourselves, or our 
children, or our friends, should be damned. God will 
undoubtedly send the wicked to hell, and he will be 
justified by the universe of intelligences in the act. 
But still it is a truth that he has “no pleasure in the 
death of the wicked,” and what reason is there why we 
should have more “pleasure” in this fearful exhibition 
of God’s justice than he has himself? If it were indeed 
possible for us to be willing to be damned ourselves, 
we should in that state of mind be wholly incompetent 
to feel the force of a world of motives set forth in the 
word of God. But if I understand the doctrine of dis¬ 
interested benevolence, as it is called, it is something 
which never has existed , never will , nor can exist 
among men. It is a very different thing from the 
regard to the general interest, and an abandonment of 
the selfish principle—the principle of pursuing the 
interests of self at the expense of the general good— 
which is essential to religion and the well-being of 
society. This neither requires us to forfeit any real 
good, or to be reconciled to any real evil. But to pro¬ 
ceed. 

4. Perfect submission to the will of God is a state 
of mind which will always accompany entire sanctifi¬ 
cation. 

The perfect Christian will have no will of his own; 
the will of God will be both his rule and his delight. 
When he knows this, though it may require him to 
make sacrifices, or to endure hardships, unexpected 


444 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


and unparalleled, he says, “ Thy will be done.” All 
his motives and actions must be in accordance with the 
revealed will of God, so far as he is capable of under¬ 
standing what that is. The father of the faithful was 
required to offer up his beloved son Isaac as a sacri¬ 
fice upon one of the mountains of Moriah. And though 
a more costly sacrifice could not have been demanded 
of him, he instantly said, Isaac must be given up ! 
This was a great effort of faith, and perhaps an unpa¬ 
ralleled instance of submission. But we shall always 
meet occasions to try us whether we will do the will 
of God, wJieyi it costs us something. And if we pause 
and object when the manifestation of God’s good plea 
sure is clear and undoubted, there is in us a want of 
entire conformity to the will of God. 

5. Those who are made perfect in love will feel 
entire and unwavering confidence in God. 

Storms may gather over the heads of the fully sanc¬ 
tified, dangers may threaten them, tempests of adver¬ 
sity may actually break upon them—they may see no 
way of escape ; but though not able to walk by sight, 
they can walk by faith , and so they are not moved. 
St. John says, “ There is no fear in love ; but perfect 
love casteth out fear ; because fear hath torment. He 
that feareth is not made perfect in love.” 1 John iv, 18. 

6. Such will enjoy uninterrupted communion with 
God. 

That the Christian has fellowship with God is bah 
presumed and directly declared in numerous places in 
the Scriptures. St. Paul speaks of the “ fellowship of 
the Spirit,” Phil, ii, 1 ; and “the communion of the 
Holy Ghost,” 2 Cor. xiii, 14. And St. John says, 
“ Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his 
Son Jesus Christ,” 1 John i, 3. And Christ says, “ If 
a man love me he will keep my words ; and my Father 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


445 


will love him, and we will come unto him, and make 
our abode with him,” John xiv, 23. All this implies— 
1. The presence of the holy Trinity. 2. Concord, or 
agreement. And, 3. Intercourse between God and the 
soul. 

And this fellowship, it may be presumed, is sensible 
—it is something of which the soul is conscious. It is 
not a flight of the imagination, nor an ecstasy, but a 
consciousness of the presence, the love, and the favour 
of God, which fill and elevate the soul. And what 
will interrupt this holy communion with God, if the 
mind is constantly fixed upon him? In the fully sanc¬ 
tified this heavenly intercourse is constant and uninter¬ 
rupted. 

“No changes of season or place,”— 

no bodily sufferings or privations, no amount of tempta¬ 
tions, will sunder the cords by which God and the sanc¬ 
tified spirit are united. Witness the triumphant lan¬ 
guage of St. Paul upon this subject: “ Who shall 
separate us from the love of Christ ? shall tribulation, 
or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or 
peril, or sword ? As it is written, For thy sake we are 
killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for 
the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more 
than conquerors, through him that loved us. For I am 
persuaded, that neither death,, nor life, nor angels, nor 
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things 
to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, 
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which 
is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom. viii, 35-39. 

But this blessed security of the soul, it must not be 
forgotten, implies inviolable fidelity—its steadfast ad¬ 
herence to Christ. “ The love of Christ” implies not 
only Christ’s love to us, but our love to him. And this 


446 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


love, growing out of a lively faith, is the principle of 
reciprocity—of change and interchange between God 
and the soul. What then but some sad delinquency 
on our part, some want of the requisite purity of heart, 
will interrupt this intercourse ? If then our love to God 
be “ made perfect,” may it not be expected that our 
communion with him will be constant and uninterrupted ? 
It may indeed vary in its sensible manifestations, but 
will not wholly subside until our iniquities separate 
between us and our God, and our sins hide his facf 
from us. Isa. lix, 2. 

Is not this a most blessed state—to feel that God is 
one with us, and makes his “ face to shine upon us V’ 
How it turns the world, which otherwise is a gloomy 
prison, into a paradise ! But I must not enlarge. 

7. In the last place I would observe, that the person 
who has come into this blessed state will be able to 
mark the several successive steps through which he 
passed from the lower stages of religious experience. 

If your soul has passed the barrier between you and 
this full salvation, my dear brother, you can mark the 
period when your inward corruptions were a burden, 
intolerable to be borne—when you desired deliverance 
from them more than any thing beside : when you re¬ 
solved, in the strength of God, to seek this great salva¬ 
tion ; when it began to appear near at hand; when you 
was able to consider it as present, and claim it as your 
own. You can recollect the revolution which then 
took place in the whole train of your views and feel¬ 
ings. How gloriously resplendent appeared the cha¬ 
racter of God—the cross of Christ—the way of holiness! 
How easy it was to believe, to love, to obey;—how 
small you seemed to yourself;—how worthless all your 
best performances ;—how the world receded from your 
view, and heaven and glory appeared to come down to 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


447 


earth ;—how you desired that this heavenly state might 
be the common privilege of all Christians, and how 
you immediately began to talk of the great things God 
had done for you. 

These I consider the evidences which in all ordi¬ 
nary cases may rationally and scripturally be expected 
to accompany the great change for which we contend. 
Some of them may be stronger than others, and some 
of them may be occasionally a little obscured by 
circumstances, but a careful examination will bring 
them to view. And where all these evidences are to 
be found, then it may safely be concluded God has 
wrought the great work of entire sanctification. But 
of the verity of the testimony the subject himself is, 
in the nature of the case, the only competent judge. 
He only can so analyze and understand his own feel¬ 
ings as to judge of them safely and truly. He conse¬ 
quently cannot safely submit his case to others for their 
authoritative decision. The matter is between him and 
his God : and though it will be useful for him to con¬ 
verse with eminently holy persons, and take their 
advice, and listen to their instructions, he must not go 
to any mortal for the decision of the great question, 
whether he has met the terms of entire sanctification, 
and received the impression of the seal upon his heart. 
This is a matter of consciousness and of induction which 
belongs wholly to himself, and which involves personal 
responsibilities which he can transfer to no other. 

I will close this lecture with a single word of advice. 
Let those who are seeking the great blessing of a clean 
heart guard equally against credulity and skepticism. 

You may be too ready to believe that God has wholly 
removed your corruptions. The suggestion that this 
is actually the case may be from the devil, designed by 
your arch foe to prevent you from truly coming into 


448 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the possession of the blessing by a thorough prosecu¬ 
tion of the great work of seeking it with all your heart. 
As seekers of religion are sometimes deceived, and build 
an evidence of pardon upon a false basis, so may you 
conclude you are indeed fully sanctified before you are. 
I have little doubt but this is the case with many, and 
when they afterward find themselves possessed of evil 
tempers, they conclude they have lost the blessing, and 
then are naturally led into the erroneous and discour¬ 
aging conclusion that it is a state most difficult if not 
impossible to be retained. It is consequently of great 
importance that we proceed with care in the examina¬ 
tion of our hearts, and in judging of the indications that 
they are wholly the Lord’s. It is dangerous to fail 
here. 0 how should we pray to God to search us, and 
prove us, and teach us what we know not! 

But, upon the other hand, we may be too slow to 
understand the character of the work God is carrying 
on in our hearts. We may require higher and stronger 
demonstrations of its character and integrity than is 
consistent with the determinations of infinite wisdom. 
We may wish “ a sign from heaven”—an extraordinary 
revelation, and may be unwilling to credit the truth of 
the work until this is vouchsafed. In this way we may 
rob our own souls of the comforts of the blessing, 
grieve the Holy Spirit, and give into the hands of the 
enemy a grand triumph. Our own unworthiness, our 
former unfaithfulness, or the greatness of the work, 
must not interfere to blind our eyes to God’s gracious 
manifestations. The more unworthy the subject, and 
the greater the work, the more glory will redound to 
God. Turn your eyes then, my brethren, from your¬ 
selves to God—the amplitude of his gracious designs, 
and of his resources to carry them into full effect. Be 
not distrustful. He who commands the winds and the 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


449 


seas is at the helm. Hear his interrogation, “ Believe ye 
that I am able to do this ?” Let your answer be, “ Lord, 
I believe, help thou mine unbelief.” And when the 
work is accomplished, be not like the nine lepers who 
went their way, but like the one stranger who returned, 
and with a loud voice gave glory to God. And be as¬ 
sured that you will glorify him truly by recognising his 
work in all its extent, and making no conditions upon 
which you will acknowledge the work accomplished. 
Simplicity of purpose, honesty and diligence, will 
secure you effectually against all deception. 


LECTURE XXI. 

ADDRESS TO PROFESSORS OF CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 

“ Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good 
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven,” Matt, v, 16. 

I feel it incumbent upon me, before I leave this 
subject, to give a word of advice to such as make pro¬ 
fession of the blessing of entire sanctification. This 
part of my duty I approach with great diffidence, as I 
feel it would be much more appropriate for me to sit 
at the feet of those I address, and learn of them my 
duty, than to assume the character of an instructer to 
them. Knowing, however, that a prominent trait in 
the character of perfect Christians is deep humility, I 
cannot doubt but all such will be ready to receive in¬ 
struction from even the feeblest of Christ’s servants. 
This consideration gives me some confidence to pro¬ 
ceed in the discharge of a duty which, under other cir¬ 
cumstances, would be quite insupportable. 

Permit me then, dear brethren, to enter somewhat 
29 


450 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


into detail, and urge upon your attention several things 
which I consider of great importance to your own spi¬ 
ritual prosperity, and your usefulness in the church and 
in the world. For advices of a general character, and 
for much special instruction, you will do well to con¬ 
sult Mr. Wesley’s Plain Account of Christian Perfec¬ 
tion, and Mr. Fletcher’s Address to Perfect Christians. 
Little more indeed of importance can be said of a prac¬ 
tical nature than may be gathered from these writers. 
A few points, however, need at the present time to be 
made more prominent, which existing circumstances 
require should be constantly present to the view of that 
class of persons whom I immediately address. The 
present position of the controversy:—the errors of 
several classes of perfectionists, and the perpetual effort 
to convict our system of a tendency to these errors :— 
the deep solicitude manifested upon the part of many 
serious persons, both among our own people, and of 
other Christian communions, to receive light upon the 
subject, and to be aided in their efforts for holiness :— 
devolve high responsibilities upon you. Perhaps there 
never was a time, since the age of the holy apostles, 
when it was more important that the doctrine of Chris¬ 
tian perfection should appear a vital reality. 

1. I would first advise you to study the doctrine of 
Christian perfection with great care. 

The only infallible source of information upon the 
doctrines of religion is the Holy Bible. Read this 
blessed book, particularly the practical and devotional 
parts of it, with a desire 'to find the true standard of 
religious experience and practice which is there set up 
Read this book with attention, read it with reverence, 
read it with solicitude, read it with prayer. When you 
open the sacred pages of the book of books, let your 
prayer to God be, “ What I know not teach thou me.” 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


451 


Next to the Bible study Wesley’s Plain Account. I 
say study it, for “plain” as is that “account” it is by 
no means to be understood fully without study and 
reflection. The definitions, the distinctions, the argu¬ 
ments should be so thoroughly impressed upon your 
minds that you can conceive of and use them with cir¬ 
cumstantial accuracy at any moment. The want of the 
accurate knowledge of what Mr. Wesley says upon 
many points of this great subject, on the part of those 
who profess to follow him, and particularly those who 
profess this blessing, has often led them to express 
themselves inconsistently, and thus to give occasion 
for great scandal. Our opponents do not fail to take 
advantage of all such cases, and to use them to the 
great prejudice of the doctrine itself. I do not say 
that you cannot enjoy the blessing of perfect love 
without thQ clear understanding of the subject here 
inculcated—I speak with reference to your useful¬ 
ness —the influence you will exert upon others, and 
especially the more thinking and intelligent portion 
of your fellow Christians. 

Next to Mr. Wesley read Mr. Fletcher. His 
productions upon the subject of Christian perfection 
are logical, argumentative, and powerfully persuasive. 
There is an unction accompanying his thoughts and 
language which touches the secret springs of the soul, 
and eminently prepares it to receive instruction, and 
to enter upon immediate action. 

Read the lives of the holy men and women who lived 
and died in the enjoyment* of perfect love :—such as 
Bramwell, Carvosso, Mrs. Fletcher, Lady Maxwell, 
and Mrs. Rogers. These will give you light as well 
as heat—will present clearly the practical workings of 
the principle. 

Finally, converse with wise and godly persons upon 


452 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


the subject upon all proper occasions ; and be sure that 
you always manifest, upon these occasions, a teacha¬ 
ble spirit. Do not think, because you are older in reli¬ 
gion, or have experienced more of the blessings of the 
great salvation than others, that therefore they can 
teach you nothing. If it be true that you are much 
better than they are, still they may be much wiser than 
you are, and it becomes you to learn all you can, even 
from those who may be your inferiors in all respects, 
and certainly from those who are your superiors in 
wisdom, and in the consideration and confidence of the 
church. 

I urge these efforts to acquire clear and consistent 
views upon the subject of Christian perfection, because 
upon you devolves the great responsibility of practically 
carrying out and sustaining the great principles which 
it involves. Those Christians who are skeptical with 
regard to the doctrine will turn their eyes from our 
books, and gaze upon you , and they will try your words, 
and scrutinize your language : and if they see evidence 
to believe that you know not what you say, nor whereof 
you affirm, what will be their conclusion ? They will 
too frequently reason from particulars to generals, and 
say these professors of Christian perfection are all 
bewildered—they can give no intelligible account of 
the matter—they do not understand their own authors. 
And they will be likely to conclude that the cause of all 
this confusion of thought arises from the nature of the 
subject, or the manner in which it has been treated 
And thus the cause is injured—the theme itself is de¬ 
graded, when the fault is only yours. O, how much 
has this great gospel doctrine suffered through the un¬ 
skilfulness of its professed friends ! Brethren, I would 
have you always awake to the greatness, the magnifi¬ 
cence of the subject, and ever jealous of its honour, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


453 


and jealous of yourselves, lest the doctrine, true, and 
lovely, and glorious as it is, should suffer reproach 
through the ignorance of its chief representatives. 

But the credit of the doctrine is not the only reason 
why it. should be well understood by those who profess 
to have felt its power. It is of infinite importance to 
themselves. How many begin well in the career of 
Christian holiness, who soon relax their efforts, and 
lose their interest in the subject! This general fact 
may result from several causes : but I doubt not a 
very common cause will be found to be radical mis¬ 
takes as to the nature of the blessing they were seek¬ 
ing, or had measurably received. They had taken up 
the erroneous conclusion that the state of entire sanc¬ 
tification implied a kind of physical renovation, or 
visions and revelations, or a series of ecstasies, or at 
least a constant tide of joy. Finding their feelings to 
subside and to vary through physical causes or change 
of circumstances, they have been led to the conclusion 
that the state is above mortality, or at least too high for 
them , and so they have let go their hold. Timely and 
proper instruction upon the subject would probably 
have guarded them against these sad reverses, and 
have enabled them to hold tin their way, and wax 
stronger and stronger, instead of falling into the snare 
of the grand adversary. If, then, you would be proof 
against the devices of the devil, you must avoid capital 
errors ; and if you would avoid capital errors, you must 
carefully study the subject. 

2. The next advice I would give is, that you beware 
of spiritual pride. 

By spiritual pride, I mean too high an opinion of 
your own piety and usefulness. You are imminently 
exposed to this temptation, from the circumstance that 
your character and professions will bring around you 


454 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


many persons who may be greatly your superiors in 
many respects, but who will often seek your advice 
and instructions touching the way of holiness. Beware 
lest such instances should work upon your spirit— 
should give you high ideas of yourselves—should ele¬ 
vate you, in your own estimation, above your brethren. 
There may be many reasons for mortification and self- 
abasement of which you are not aware, and there is 
imminent danger of suffering your zeal in the cause 
of holiness to degenerate into a desire for distinction 
and pre-eminence. Should you be taken by this snare 
of the grand adversary, you might be led on to affect 
eminent sanctity from selfish motives, and ultimately 
be left to fall and perish ! 

This deadly foe to true Christian perfection, spiritual 
pride, sometimes develops itself in a kind of affected 
humility. All studied efforts to show off our low views 
of ourselves—either a phraseology or a general bear¬ 
ing which evidently exhibits an effort to appear humble 
—is looked upon by the observing with distrust. A 
simplicity of manner, and an unaffected humility, which 
can only result from a thorough knowledge of ourselves 
—of our weakness, unprofitableness, ignorance, and 
short comings—are the true ornaments of the Chris 
tian character; and must not be wanting, especially 
in you. 

3. Beware of putting too much confidence in extra¬ 
ordinary manifestations. 

I would by no means throw doubt on such extraor¬ 
dinary instances of divine communications, and imme¬ 
diate answers to prayer, as are to be found in the his¬ 
tory of the religious experience of some pious persons ; 
nor would I lightly estimate such peculiar divine inter¬ 
positions. But what I would have you guard* against 
is, a notion that these things are always an accompani- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


455 


ment of an eminent degree of Christian holiness. God 
was never prodigal of miraculous gifts, nor were these 
always the strongest evidences of deep communion 
with him. St. Paul supposes it possible to have a 
wonder-working faith , and yet to be without charity. 
But the age of miracles has passed away, and the 
holiest men and women upon earth are equally subject 
with others to the ordinary laws of nature and provi¬ 
dence, and compelled to “walk by faith, not by sight.” 
We should remember that the highest excellence, and 
the sum of all perfection, is love: to love God with all 
the heart is more to be desired than the power to raise 
the dead to life. This is the true glory of the Christian 
character, and the most acceptable to God of all attain¬ 
ments which may be imagined possible. 

4. Beware of all extravagances in your religious 
exercises. 

I would not discourage a Scriptural and reverent 
expression of feeling in your religious devotions—far 
from it—I would encourage and urge this as a duty, 
as well as a privilege. But all undue and overstrained 
efforts of the voice—all uncouth contortions of the body 
—any thing in gesture or language calculated to excite 
ludicrous emotions, or to bring religion in general, or 
Christian perfection in particular, into contempt, should 
‘ b& carefully avoided. Every one knows well the dif¬ 
ference between true religion and extravagant muscular 
exertion. No one ever understood this better than did 
Mr. Wesley himself, and no man ever spoke more de¬ 
cidedly and scripturally upon the subject than he did. 
Labour always to feel chastened, fervent, holy emo¬ 
tions, and your outward expressions will be decent, 
grave, and impressive. You will be likely to give no 
offence to good taste, and to give no occasion to the 
devil to buffet you. True devotional feeling is the 


456 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


result of divine influence, and is not to be got up by 
physical efforts. Prayer and faith—wrestling with 
God—is the appointed way to the inner sanctuary of 
deep communion w r ith the Invisible. 

5. On all proper occasions communicate to your 
brethren what God has done for you. 

The lamp of holiness is not lit up to be put under 
a bushel, but to be set up in a prominent place, 
that it may give light to all around. Nor is there 
any reason why God should not be glorified in this 
great and precious gift, in the same manner that he 
is in the lower degrees of grace. But I say on all 
proper occasions, and not on all occasions indiscrimi¬ 
nately. And as to what are proper occasions, you 
must generally judge for yourselves. It is easy to see 
that it would not be proper to speak of your attainments 
in this respect in the presence of a mixed assembly, 
where there were many who would not be edified, but, 
on the other hand, would be scandalized or offended 
by it: nor would it be proper to do so in conversation 
with scoffers, or cavillers, or any of the various classes 
of opposers of the doctrine of Christian perfection. 
And it is equally easy to see that it would be proper 
to give an account of your experience of this blessing 
in select meetings of Christian brethren, and in con¬ 
versation with such as are inquiring anxiously after the 
truth, and are prepared to listen to your relations with 
candor, and to profit’by your experience. And this is 
all, perhaps, that it is necessary or would be proper for 
me to say upon this point. It will often require much 
wisdom to determine when to speak and when to keep 
silent upon the subject. This wisdom is to be gained 
by experience and observation, and he who has the 
most of it will be likely to render most service to the 
cause of holiness. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


457 


6. Endeavour to preserve a perfect consistency be¬ 
tween your professions and practice. 

You profess to love God with all your heart. Think, 
O think, what high expectations this profession raises 
in the church ! If now you are unsteady in your reli¬ 
gious course—if your life is defective in the savour of 
piety—if you are not always prepared to make great 
sacrifices, and to perform great labours, for the honour 
of Christ and the salvation of men—how sad will be 
the disappointment! Do not stippose that your per¬ 
sonal enjoyments, be they ever so genuine, ^vill be ac¬ 
cepted instead of active zeal in all the great duties of 
religion. You must not live for yourselves alone : you 
must live for Christ—you must live for the church— 
you must live for the world. Christ, the church, and 
the world, unite in laying these claims, and in your 
professions of perfect love you acknowledge their 
equity. 

7. Finally, I would urge that most necessary and 
salutary caution of St. Paul, “ Abstain from all appear¬ 
ance of evil.” 

Upon this point I must beg your indulgence if I 
dwell a little longer than upon any of those w'hich I 
have previously presented. It would certainly seem, 
from this language, that the apostle supposes it pos¬ 
sible for appearances of evil to develop themselves 
when no evil is intended, or even suspected by us. 
Let us illustrate the subject by a few cases. 

An undue devotion to business, extreme rigour in 
pressing our claims, and stinted contributions to bene¬ 
volent objects, may result from our honest convictions 
of duty to our families, our creditors, and ourselves; 
but will often have the appearance of a worldly spirit, 
and of that covetousness which is idolatry. A bois¬ 
terous manner in prosecuting a controversy, extreme 


458 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


sensitiveness under injuries, and great violence m 
opposing error or sin, may appear to us like the opera¬ 
tions of a religious regard for the truth, a proper and 
commendable self-respect, and a zeal for the cause of 
God; but to others all this may appear like the effer¬ 
vescence of unholy tempers—may look very much like 
the workings of angry passions. Ourdress and equipage 
may seem to us only decent and comfortable; bjit to 
the great mass around us may appear like the .fruits of 
pride. Our social habits may in our view be only such 
as are required by our social relations ; but may appear 
to others to savour of a love of worldly and gay society. 
Our manner and spirit may to us appear merely cheer¬ 
ful ; but to all others we may seem trifling. Or we 
may, on the other hand, design to be merely grave, 
reserved, and dignified in our manner ; but may appear 
to all beside, if not austere and scornful, yet sour, cold, 
and repulsive. We may value ourselves upon our 
character for plainness and primitive simplicity, when 
we appear to all persons of good taste, vulgar, coarse, 
and reckless of all the decencies of life. It is often 
said, I am a plain, old-fashioned man—I speak right 
out, just as I think. All very well, if this be not said 
to justify indelicate assaults upon the feelings of others, 
or a want of respect for the views and opinions of those 
who are entitled to respectful consideration and kind 
brotherly treatment. We may design to pour just 
contempt upon some absurd opinion or practice ; but 
may appear to all the world as making large efforts to 
display our own wit, or gratify feelings of personal 
revenge. We may seem to ourselves discharging an 
imperative duty in administering public reproof; but 
our manner may savour more of censoriousness than 
of the spirit of brotherly love. We may cultivate a 
zealous manner in our religious exercises, and may be 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


459 


really ardent in our feelings and honest in all our ex¬ 
pressions ; and yet we may appear to others to affect 
more than we feel—there may seem to be more sound 
than sense—more noise than spirit in our religion. 

But I forbear. Illustrations might be multiplied 
indefinitely, but I must give no more, lest I should be 
tedious. I hope I shall not be misunderstood. I mean 
simply to illustrate and enforce the apostle’s exhorta¬ 
tion. And if it mean any thing, it certainly puts an 
importance upon appearances which too many are un¬ 
willing to admit. If I have not entirely mistaken in 
the matter, we are here prohibited not only all real 
wrong-doing, but all appearances of wrong, either in 
practice or principle. If this be the right view of the 
subject we are not at liberty to be entirely reckless as 
to the opinions which may be formed of our actions. 
It is not enough that our motives have been good. 
This would indeed be all that would be required if we 
were solitary beings—if we were not associated with 
other men, and constantly acting upon them, and con¬ 
tributing to form their character and habits. But as it 
is, we must take heed what impressions we make upon 
the minds around us. 

The truth seems to be, that it is the appearance of 
evil that does the harm to society. If I perform an 
act which appears to all the world wrong, the goodness 
of my motives will not neutralize its influence upon the 
moral feelings of community. Should we ever, then, 
forget that “ we are made a spectacle to the world ?” 
Should we be entirely careless of public opinion? 
Should we think it a light thing that we have con¬ 
ducted ourselves so indiscreetly as to be misunder¬ 
stood, and to have our motives impugned ? All this 
evil may come upon us when we have done our very 
best. But even then we should deeply regret it, and 


460 


SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 


carefully and anxiously inquire whether the mischief 
may not have originated in some negligence on our 
part, and how the like evil is to be avoided in the 
future. Let us never forget, that if our actions, words, 
or spirit have “ the appearance of evil,” we are in all 
such cases inflicting a wound upon the moral feelings 
of others—our example is essentially injurious—and so 
far we are helping on the cause of sin and error ! What 
an astounding consideration is this to a tender con¬ 
science ! And shall we diligently labour to build up 
the cause of Christ with one hand, and pull it down 
with the other ? Shall we, through our want of true 
Christian prudence, more than neutralize all our exer¬ 
tions in the cause of truth and holiness? God forbid. 
Will we suffer others with lower religious attainments 
to exert a better influence upon society ? This would 
be truly lamentable. It would indeed be, in a sense, 
to hide our talent in the earth. 

The good of society, the glory of God, and our own 
dearest interests call loudly upon us to heed this wise 
and always timely admonition. It comes home with 
peculiar force to those who have experienced the 
blessing of perfect love. You, dear brethren, of all 
others, should be without reproach—should keep your 
garments unspotted from the world There should be 
a circumspection, a vigilance, an integrity, an upright¬ 
ness of life that will always impress the beholder with 
respect for your character and professions. You 
should not only be pure , but unsuspected. There should 
be no appearances which do not exactly correspond 
with the principles and feelings of your hearts. Upon 
your life, your actions, your words, your countenance, 
your spirit, should be inscribed, “Holiness to the 
Lord.” 

But should any inquire, how all this elevation of cha 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 


461 


racier and consistency of behaviour are to be attained ? 

I would answer, that one habit properly established 
will, with that constant divine aid which God has pro¬ 
mised to the faithful, secure the object. Only have 
always resting upon your heart a sense of the import¬ 
ance of the impressions you are making upon others. 
This state of mind will lead you to a daily examination 
of yourself, and a strict scrutiny of your ways. And 
you will acquire a clearness of perception and an 
acuteness of discrimination as to what acts are in 
keeping with your high professions, which will save 
you from a multitude of errors, which, though small in 
themselves, are still blemishes in your character. All 
our faculties, both of body and mind, are improved by 
exercise. Exercising your moral sense, or, if you 
please, your conscience, will increase its power of • 
discrimination: and, hence, if we desire to acquire a 
tender and a discriminating conscience, we must task 
it with an abundance of labour. If we would have a 
clear spiritual vision, we must habitually exercise it 
upon minute objects—upon small matters—upon ap¬ 
pearances of evil. Mr. Wesley says, “ He that ne¬ 
glects little things shall fall by little and little.” How 
many have proved the truth of this maxim by sad 
experience! 

But never forget that all your help must come from 
above. If you have the grace to avoid evil, and the 
wisdom to “ abstain from all appearance of evil,” the 
God of all grace and wisdom must give it to you. All 
our righteousness, all our strength, all our wisdom, are 
directly from God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. To 
whom be glory for ever and ever Amen. 








INDEX 


Ambrose on the seventh of Romans.Pag® 313 

Anabaptists said to have been perfectionists. 197 

Not a matter of concern to us. 199 

Arminius, James, opposes the doctrines of Calvin. 128 

On the law.242 

On Rom. viii, 4. 266-269 

Views of, on perfection. 132-134 

Argument of, on the seventh of Romans. 302-317 

Arndt on perfect love. 73, 74 

Augsburg Confession, on legal perfection. 116 

Augustine, St., views of, on original sin...„. 89, 90 

Did not condemn the opinion that man might be without sin, 

until after the council of Carthage. 96, 97 

Sometimes denies, and at others admits, that men may live 

without sin. 98 

Dupin’s abstract of the views of, upon the subject.98, 99 

Held to the phantom of mortal and venial sin. 98-100 

On the seventh of Romans. 314-317 

On Phil, iii, 12, 15. 391 

Baptisms, doctrine of. 8 

Barclay, Robert, on perfection. 87 

Bames, Rev. Albert, Commentary of, on Rom. vii. 292, 293 

Contradicts himself. 293-295 

Basil the Great on the seventh of Romans. 307-309 

Bates, Dr. William, on perfection in holiness.75-83 

On temptation. 435, 436 

Bloomfield, Dr., on the seventh of Romans. 319 

Buck, Rev. Charles, denies the attainableness of perfection... 184 
Burnet, Bishop, his exposition of fifteenth article of the Church 
of England. 114, 115 

Calvin denies the attainableness of perfection. 183,201 

On the law. 228-230 

On the word “ impossible ”. 322 

Asserts that Paul was subject to pride. 393 

Carthage, council of. 04 

Decrees of, against the Pelagian doctrine of legal perfec¬ 
tion. ------ .94-96 

Cartwright says we must not pray to be freed from sin in this 

life..?....:. 324 

Carvosso on joy. 438 

Catharii, some account of.... 197, 198 





































464 


INDEX. 


Celestius.Page 88, 92 

Chrysostom on the seventh of Romans.*. 306, 307 

Church of England, fifteenth article of, on sinful imperfection.. 114 

Clarke, Dr. A., his views of perfection. 51-54 

Criticism on 1 Kings viii, 46, and Eccles. vii, 20. 282, 283 

Commentary upon Phil, iii, 12-14 . 389-391 

Clemens Alexandrinus on perfection. 68 

Clement, St., on perfection in love. 6"* 

Communion with God an evidence of entire sanctification. 44 1 

Confession, Belgic, on perfection. 129, 130 

Confidence an evidence of entire sanctification. 444 

Contrition necessary in seeking holiness. 403-405 

Cranmer, Archbishop, asserts that sin is destroyed by death... 112 

Cud worth on victory over sin. 72, 73 

Cyprian on the seventh of Romans. 305, 306 

Damascenus on the seventh of Romans. 311,312 

Death purgatory, the, of Dr. Snodgrass. 216 

Dick, Dr., denies the attainableness of perfection. 184 

Diodati, Commentary of, on Phil, iii, 14. 390 

On the witness of the Spirit. 439 

Disinterested benevolence, Professor Finney’s views of— 190, 191 

How far true. 442, 443 

Dort, Synod of, condemned the Remonstrants. 128 

Did not condemn the doctrine of perfection. 129, 131, 132 


Episcopius, views of, on perfection. 134-136 

Erasmus, comment of, on Matt, v, 8. 71 

Evidences of entire sanctification, what are not. 432-437 

What are. 103-110 


Faith, toward God. 8 

The condition of entire sanctification. 405 

What, implies. 405-409 

Feeling of our need of entire sanctification necessary. 400-402 

Finney, Professor, his statement of the doctrine of entire sanc¬ 
tification. 275-279 

Flesh, sinful, what. 331-333 

Fletcher, Rev. John, his statement of the doctrine of perfec¬ 
tion. 48-51 

Answers objections against the doctrine of perfection_151-160 

Answers Mr. Toplady’s objections. 162-173 

Against the identity of regeneration and entire sanctification 350 
Fox, John, the martyrologist, against Romish perfection.. 108-110 

Gifts, extraordinary, not an evidence of entire sanctification... 438 
Gomarus charges the Remonstrants with holding perfection_129 


Goodwin, John, on perfection. 83, 84 

Grace, life of. 37 

Gradual, in what sense entire sanctification is.212 


Hands, laying on of. 


8 









































INDEX. 


465 


Harding, Dr. J., argument in favour of legal perfection, Page 103, 104 


Hedding, Rev. Bishop, views of, on perfection.60-64 

Hodge, Professor, Commentary of, on Romans vii. 286-291 

Holiness, being renewed in. 38 

Hooker defines perfection.-.... 25 

On attempting an impossibility. 324 

On interpreting Scripture language. 368 

Hooper, John, the martyr, asserts the continuance of concu¬ 
piscence in all through life. 112 

Ignatius, St., on perfection in faith, love, and holiness. 67 

Instantaneous, in what sense entire sanctification is. 212 

Interpretation, rule of. 368 

Transgressed by Drs. Snodgrass and Woods. 367-370 

Irenaeus on perfection.67, 68 

On the seventh of Romans. 303, 304 

Jansenists and Jesuits, controversy on perfection. 125-127 

Jerome, St., on the seventh of Romans.313, 314 

Jewell, Bishop, argument of, against the Romish doctrine of 

legal perfection. 103-107 

Joy not an evidence of entire sanctification.. - 437, 438 

Judgment, eternal. 8 

Justification, what.27,29 

Blessedness of...28, 29 

King Edward VI., prayer of, for a clean heart. 71 

Knowledge, renewed in. 37 

Knox, Alexander, eulogy of, upon Mr. Wesley, and the doc¬ 
trine of perfection. 209, 210 

Law, the Oberlin divines charged with letting down the.179 

Doctrine of perfection said to dishonour the.219 

Sense in which the, is set aside.221 

This sense sanctioned by authorities. 226-235 

Limborch, views of, on perfection.136-143 

Liturgy of the Church of England quoted by Mr. Fletcher in 

proof of perfection. 169-173 

Love, the fulfilling of the law.-. 223-225 

•Supreme, an evidence of entire sanctificatiou. 441-443 

Lucas, Dr. R., biographical notice of. 74 

On religious perfection.-. .... 74, 75 

Luther asserts the necessary continuance of indwelling sin 

through life. 

The iaw set aside as a condition of salvation. 226, 227 

Law—what.-. 242, 243 


Macarius, concerning the return and triumph of sin after justifi¬ 
cation. 

Biographical notice of.- ^8 

Views of, on perfection.. -.68-70 

Macknight, Dr., on the seventh of Romans.317, 318 

30 










































466 


INDEX. 


Mahan, President, his statement of Christian perfection. Page 174-177 


On the grace exercised in our sanctification.187, 188 

Maxwell, Lady, on joy.438 

Melancthon against legal perfection. 115, 116 

Difference between, and Mr. Wesley, on sin in believers 116, 117 

On the law. 227, 228 

Methodists, Mr. Knox’s opinions of. 209, 210 

Not favourers of fanaticism.210, 211 


Nordheimer, Dr., a rule in the Hebrew Grammar of, quoted.280,281 


Norris, Mr., on the perfect love of God.84, 85 

Novatians, some account of.197, 198 


Oberlin divines, views of, on perfection.174-179 

Have met with two classes of opponents.180 

Difference between them and Methodists. Objectionable 

features of their theory of perfection.189-194 

Objections against the doctrine of perfection. 

A series of, stated and answered by Mr. Fletcher.. 151-160 

Another series of, stated and answered— 

1. It is Pelagianism.194 

2. Identified with fanaticism.197 

3. Opposed by the Reformers....200 

4. Human weakness forbids it.201 

5. No examples.203 

6. The nearer we approach it the more distant it seems... 203 

7. Hastens sanctification to too sudden a conclusion.204 

8. Injurious to religion.207 

9. Disagrees with facts.211 

(1.) Against a growth in grace. . .211 

(2.) All are afflicted.212 

(3.) All are required to use the means of sanctification.. 213 

(4.) None arrive at a perfect knowledge of the truth_215 

(5.) All Chiistianshave corruptible bodies.215 

10. Dishonours God’s law, 220; Scripture testimony, 242 ; 

1 Kings, viii, 46, and Eccles. vii, 20, 280 ; James iii, 

2, 283, 284 ; 1 John, i, 8, 284, 285 ; Rom. vii, 285-301. 
Against the necessaiy continuance of sin in believers until death 322 

1. Makes it our misfortune, not our fault..322 

2. Nourishes spiritual sloth.323 

3. Gives too much credit to death. 325, 326 

4. Adds a qualification to the doctrine of sanctification con¬ 

trary to Scripture. 326, 327 

5. Is dishonourable to Christ.327 

6. Supposes a connection between sin and the body wholly 

unauthorized.328 

Origen on the seventh of Romans. 304, 305 


Pierce, Dr., Commentary on Heb. vi. 10 

Ditto on Phil, iii, 14. 388, 389 

Pelagianism objected against perfection.194, 195 



































INDEX. 


467 

Pelagianism, the objection of, lies against Dr. Woods and the 

new school divines.Page 196 

Pelagius, views, of, on original sin, 88, 89 ; on keeping the law, 

90, 91. Arraigned before the council of Diospolis, 91; of 
Carthage, 94. Views of, on free-will and grace, 91-94. 
Holds grace is given according to merit, 97. 

Perfection—Go on to, 24. Meaning of the word—Dr. Mac- 
knight’s sense of the word, as in Heb. vi, 1, 24; Dr. Clarke’s, 

25. Hooker’s definition of, 25; Bailey’s ditto, 25, 26. Dif¬ 
ferent kinds of, ib. Wesleyan views of, 26 ; what, as taught 
in the Scriptures, ib. Implies holiness, or entire sanctifica¬ 
tion, 27. Wesleyan theory of, 39-66. Does not exclude 
mistakes and infirmities, 44-47. Dr. Lucas defines a habit 
of righteousness, 75. Wesley’s Plain Account of, 148. 

Perfection of innocence, 76; of grace, ib.; of glory, ib. Essen¬ 
tial perfection, 77 ; integral, ib. ; comparative, 78, 119, 122 ; 
intellectual, 78; moral, 78-80; relative, 81,82; absolute, 

82. Perfection of sincerity, 119, 121; in extent, ib. Evan¬ 
gelical perfection, according to Turretin and Witsius, is 
imputed, 119, 122. Perfection of parts, 121; of degrees, 

59, 122, 123, 135. 

Perfection, legal, Episcopius defines and disavows.136 

Oberlin divines on.174-179 

Held by Pelagius and Romanists. 97,101,103, 108 

- by the Oberlin divines.175-179 

Discussion of at large. 242-278 

Not held by Wesleyan Methodists. 65,273 

Pond, Dr., views of, concerning the legal perfection of the 
Oberlin divines, 176 ; concerning the evangelical system, 

220. Misrepresents Mr. Wesley, 225. Adduces cases in 
which the pious fall into sin, 385, 386. 

Prayer for a clean heart.71, 72 

-for entire sanctification.411-414 

-for others, availing as we are holy. 423-425 

Principles, elementary, we must leave, 7. First, of the doc¬ 
trine of Christ, 8. In what sense we must not leave, 10-13. 

In what sense we must leave, 13, 14. Reasons for leaving, 
14-17. 

Purgatory implied in the theory of Dr. Snodgrass.215-218 

Reformers, while they oppose Pelagian and Romish perfection, 

distinctly admit evangelical.117, 118 

-opinions of, objected against perfection.200 

Regeneration, what. ( . 27 

Remonstrants, how they acquired the name. 138 

Repentance from dead works. 8 

Resurrection of the dead. 8 

Review, Christian, on the views of the Reformers as to perfec¬ 
tion. 116 

On the controversy between the Jansenists and Jesuits. 124, 125 
Objection of, to the doctrine of perfection..194, 195 






















468 INDEX. 

Review, Princeton, objection of, to the doctrine of perfec¬ 


tion.. -. Page 207 

Adduces Scripture proof for the continuance of sin. 279 

Righteousness, being renewed in. 48 

Romaine, denies the attainableness of perfection. 183 

Romanists hold not only perfect conformity to the law, but 

doing more than the law requires. 100, 101 

Rosemnuller on the seventh of Romans. 318, 319 


Sanctification—word does not always imply perfection. 27 

———begins with justification. 30 


-entire, what, 32. Dr. Robinson’s account of the senses 

in which the word is used in Scripture, 32-34. Dr. Clarke’s 
definition of, 34 ; Mr. Watson’s, 34. 

-entire, embraces two things, death to sin, and life to 

righteousness. 35 

-progress of, represented as rapid, and its consumma¬ 
tion not long delayed... . 205 

-entire, not attributed to death, 325, 326. Is not ne¬ 
cessarily delayed until death, 333-340. Not identical with 
regeneration, nor a necessary concomitant of justification, 
341-364. Attainable—direct Scripture proof, 365-396:— 

1. God’s commands, 366. 2. The provisions of the gospel, 

371. 3. The promises, 375. 4. Is a matter of prayer, 

379. 5. Instances, 382-386. 

—:— The way to attain. 397-416 

l. A definite notion of, 397. 2. Feeling, 400. 3. Contri¬ 
tion, 403. 4. Faith, 405. 5. The means of grace, 409. 

6. Prayer, 411 ; secret, 411-413; social 413, 414; ha¬ 
bitual, 414. 

-Motives to seek. 416-432 

1. It is the will of God, 417. 2. For the glory of God, 

419. 3. Usefulness, 421. 4. Our own interest, 427-432. 

-Evidences of—What are not— 

1. Exemption from temptations, 432-437. 2. Uninterrupt¬ 
ed joy, 437, 438. 3. Extraordinary gifts, 438. 4. Suc¬ 

cess, 438. 

What are—1. The witness of the Spirit, 439-441. 2. Vic 
tory over sin, 441. 3. Love, 441-443. 4. Perfect sub¬ 
mission, 443, 444. 5. Confidence, 444. 6. Com¬ 

munion with God, 444. 7. An ability to mark the 


steps, 446. 

-A word of caution to such as seek.. 447-449 

Sanctification, entire, advice to those who profess.... 449-461 


1. To study the doctrine, 450. 2. To beware of spiritual 

pride, 453. 3. Against undue confidence in extraordi¬ 
nary manifestations, 454. 4. Against extravagances in 

religious exercises, 455. 5. To communicate what God 

has done, 456. 6. To preserve consistency between 

profession and practice, 457. 7. To abstain from all ap¬ 

pearance of evil, 457. 

























INDEX. 


469 


Scott, Dr. Thomas, charges the Remonstrants with holding to 

perfection.Page 130 

Not well informed as to the doctrines of anti-Calvinists ..131, 132 
Sin may exist where it does not reign, 29. Is suspended in 
the justified, but not wholly destroyed, 30. 

In believers—Mr. Wesley on. 344-348 

Macarius concerning the return and triumph of, after iustifi- 

cation. 31 

Members of the body of. 36 

Mortal and venial, held by Augustine. 98-101 

Not in the body, but the soul. 328 

Argument that it is in the body, considered. 329, 330 

Sincerity an element of perfection. 77 

Snodgrass, Dr., views of, concerning the legal perfection of the 

Oberlin divines.176, 177 

-alleges several objections against perfection.211-218 

-on the claims of the law.239 

-on the word “ attainable ”. 322 

-holds sin in the body, 328. Answers an objection. 330, 331 

-on the meaning of the word “ perfect ”.367 

-objection of, to the argument from the provisions of the 

gospel, 372, 373. Answer of, to the argument from the pro¬ 
mises, 376. Assumes, without proof, that the prayers for 
entire sanctification are not to be answered in this life, 379, 

380. On 1 Thess. v, 23, 380, 381. Attempts to prove that 
Paul was not perfect, 387, 388. Argues from Phil, iii, 12, 

14, 389, 390 ; Heb. xii, 1, 391, 392. Alleges Paul was sub¬ 
ject to spiritual pride, 392. Asserts the contention between 
Paul and Barnabas as proof that Paul was not perfect, 393. 
Stuart, Professor, on the views of Arminius concerning perfec¬ 
tion, 144. Has vindicated Arminius from several false accu¬ 
sations, 147. 

-Commentary of, on Rom. vii, 22. 288, 289 

-on the seventh of Romans. 319, 320 

-on sinful flesh. 332 

-Commentary of, on Heb. xii, 1. 392 

Submission, perfect, an evidence of entire sanctification... 443, 444 
Success notan evidence of entire sanctification. 438 


Taylor, Bishop, on perfection. 83 

Temptations, what. 433 

-when terminate in sin. 433-437 

Tertullian on the seventh of Romans. 304 

Theodoret on the seventh of Romans. 309-311 

Theophylact on the seventh of Romans. 312 

Toplady, Rev. Augustus, objections of, against perfection. 160, 161 
Assaults of, upon Mr. Wesley and his views of perfection 149, 150 
Asserts the violence of the inward corruptions of the rege¬ 
nerate.- 205 

Asserts and illustrates the superiority of slow progress in reli¬ 
gion . 207 







































470 


INDEX. 


Treffry, Rev. R., his views of perfection.Page 56-60 

Turretin on perfection. 118-121 

On the instances of perfection. 384, 385 

Jsher, Archbishop, on the law and the covenants. 232-235 


Watson, Rev. R., his views of Christian perfection. 55, 56 

Argument of, against the plea that entire sanctification is de¬ 
layed until death. 333-340 

Against the identity of regeneration and entire sanctifica¬ 
tion. 351 

Wesley, Rev. John, his views on sanctification, 27. On sin in 
believers, 29. On justification and regeneration, 28-32. On 
Christian perfection, 41-48. On the law, 221-225. 

-explains James iii, 2, and 1 John i, 8. 283-285 

-against the identity of regeneration and entire sanctifi¬ 
cation. 343,350 

Wesleyan theory of Christian perfection. 41-66 

Westminster Catechism on the law.*. 231-235 

Westminster divines assert that the commandments cannot be 
kept, 113, 184. On sinful flesh, 332. On Phil, iii, 14, 389. 

On the witness of the Spirit, 439, 440. 

Whitby, Dr., on the seventh of Romans. 296, 301 

Wiclif, on perfect life. 70, 71 

Willet, Dr., biographical notice of, 101. Refutes the Romish 
dogma of .councils of perfection, 101-103. 

Witness of the Spirit, 439, 440 ; to entire sanctification, 439-441. 
Witsius on perfection, 121-123. Denies the attainableness of 
perfection, 183. On the law, 230, 231. On praying for im¬ 
possibilities, 324. 

Woods, Dr., difference between the views of, and those of Ar- 
minius, 145. On the attainableness of perfection, 180-182. 
Asserts that his views are in accordance with those of evan 
gelical Christians generally, 182. His assertion refuted, 
183-185. Bad logic of, 185, 316. His doctrine savours of 
Pelagianism, 196. Is opposed to Calvin, 201, 202. On the 
meaning of the word “perfection,” &c., 367, 368. Answer 
of, to the argument from the provisions of the gospel, 374. 
Answer of, to the argument from the promises, 376, 377. 
Objects that, if sanctified wholly, we should not pray for 
it, 382. 

Words, their influence. 421, 423 

Worthington, Dr., on perfection. 85-37 

Zenzendorf—views of, on the identity of sanctification and 
justification as to time. 342 






























V 


















































. # 






■ ' 










* 


















































































































" 

















































































I . 























t 









% 














* t -g > 




























r* 3 

















» ■* 

; 

. • • 


• • % 

' 

*■ 







• • • 

- 











.. : 

•.» 

- 


rv ► * 

- 





















* 























































? 


% 






























r> 

' 










> 










' 

- 













- 




















f 











t 







V 























* I 





































' 

























